\ 


aS 


Ko 


igs 


ee 


. 


MWA: 
CQ 
RAN \ 
\ 


\ SAN 
SN 


Ys \\ hy 


N 
\ 


ACK 

\ : AN 
A « ~~ 
NY 


ti Z 
Zi 
tj; 


Yi 
tj 


YS 


ZZ 


ae 


we 
SLI Z 


o 


LE 
LZ 


, 


0, 
Z 


LE 
tj. 


MES, 


Le 








ri, 
ay Oe 
i Th 


IM Ng 
We cote 


; aie 
ee 

: AS Wt Rag 
he te a bie 


Lora) 


" 
¥ 








CAN AN EVOLUTIONIST BE A CHRISTIAN? 








Can an Evolutionist 
be a Christian? 





by 
yi 


Y, 
W. Lee Rector, A. M. 


Professor of Psychology 





Oklahoma Baptist University 









1926 
THE STRATFORD COMPANY, Publishers 


Boston, MAssacHUSETTS 







Copyright, 1926 
The STRATFORD CO., Publishers 
Boston, Mass. 


Printed in the United States of America 


TO 
The helpmate, unselfing and sharing, 
Inspiring and caring, 
The mother of our son, 


This volume is gratefully dedicated. 





Preface 


HE race persistently enquires after the meaning 

of existences. It universally seeks to account for 
the presence of forms and forces, and constantly at- 
tempts to evaluate them. Roughly speaking, all philo- 
sophie explanations are made either in terms of natural 
law or in terms of Infinite Life. These procedures un- 
questionably represent present-day avenues of approach 
to philosophic studies. 

Naturalists, Organic evolutionists, champion the first 
method of interpretation and orthodox Christians cham- 
pion the second. The one seeks to explain all existences 
and co-existences in terms of natural law. The other 
seeks to explain them in terms of Infinite Life. As a 
result of the prevalence of these two methods of inter- 
pretation, an all-important issue obtains to-day; namely, 
naturalism versus supernaturalism. By virtue of its 
nature and its infiuence, Organic evolution has a very 
important bearing upon this present-day issue. Since 
Organic evolution postulates the dominion of natural 
law, it becomes at once a bone of contention. Although 
the conflict centers around the Organic evolutionary 
hypothesis, readers should ever remember that the issue 
is not, philosophically speaking, an evolutionary one. It 
is naturalism versus supernaturalism. 

Concerning the principles actuating these schools of 
thought, the author aims to define fundamental ones and 
in turn correlate and evaluate them. He frankly admits 
the difficulties involved in such a role of detached think- 


1 


PREFACE 


ing, owing to the fact that mental states are seldom 
completely unified. Notwithstanding existing difficul- 
ties, he believes that clarity importunes the attempt. 
Upon deriving definitions, he shall, so far as ability will 
permit, apply rigidly the limitations and direction of 
logie. 

The author believes that the real significance of Or- 
ganic evolution cannot be had apart from adequate 
definition. To define it as development certainly misses 
the mark. No discerning individual doubts for a mo- 
ment that history discloses progress; or that life reveals 
meaningful changes. 

A comparative study of Organic evolution and devel- 
opment reveals marked differences. Organic evolution 
is simply an unrolling process. Development is both an 
imrolling and an unrolling one. Concerning this differ- 
ence in meaning, it is important to remember that the 
inrolling process must be antecedent to the unrolling 
one. In ignoring the wnrolling process, such evolution- 
ary philosophers deal only with half facts; hence, their 
conclusions would logically be faulty. In making a 
place both for an imrolling and an unrolling process, 
orthodox Christians, believers in development, deal with 
whole facts; hence, their conclusions would logically be 
true. A 
Some would claim that Organic evolution is not con- 
cerned about the inrolling process. Logically speaking, 
this is true. But Organic evolutionists, being human, 
are not content to stop at a method of natural behavior. 
They regularly seek to intrepret the universe as they 
see it. To do so rightfully, however, forces a considera- 
tion of both causes and effects, since true science main- 


il 


PREFACE 


tains that there must be an adequate cause for every 
effect. To insist on dealing with effects only is to in- 
sist upon dealing with half truths. To understand the 
facts of life, it is just as necessary to understand the 
imrolling process as it is to understand the wnrolling one. 
Hence, any adequate interpretation of existences de- 
mands that individuals take cognizance both of causes 
and effects. 

A eareful study of Organic evolution and a candid 
survey of its influence, forces the conclusion that it is 
an egoistic doctrine; that it logically encourages misun- 
derstandings and social conflict; and that it inescap- 
ably limits the function of supernaturalism. Such a 
role is obviously unsocial and unchristian. To empha- 
size selfishness means the encouragement of strife. To 
discountenance supernaturalism means the turning of 
the race unto itself for deliverance and succor. Human 
history shows that self-help as a principle of egoistic be- 
havior leads inevitably to individual and social chaos. 

The ideal-social well-being of the race obligates man- 
kind to search diligently after facts; to evaluate them 
in terms of actual existences rather than in terms of 
opinions; and to incorporate them into a philosophy of 
life comprehensive enough to admit an eternity of truth. 
The tendency of many modern scientists to force all 
facts into the evolutionary category in order to give 
them rational explanation is a flagrant violation of sci- 
entific procedure and is, of course, reprehensible both 
in theory and practice. 

Concerning the application of a few terms in this 
volume, the following should be noted. Self as used in 


lil 


PREFACE 


Chapter I usually refers to the ego. Altrwism as a rule 
refers to the alter-ego. Unselfishness as used involves 
more than altruism; it comprehends not only altruism 
but the re-motivation of regeneration. Searchlight of 
omniscience refers to the Holy Bible. Species refer to 
definite kinds of life, limited in their behavior to defi- 
nite kinds of law. Character changes in species do not 
mean the production of new species; they mean simply 
the modification of the old species. To illustrate, the 
loss of sight by fish in the Mammoth Cave does not mean 
the production of a new specie; it means simply, blind 
fish. Again, hornless cattle are no less cattle because they 
have lost their horns. Transmutations refer to one 
specie, under the urge of natural law, passing over into 
another, and then into another, and so on. To illustrate, 
a fish becoming a man would be a good example. WNat- 
uralists and natwralism refer in general to all people in 
all the ages who idealize nature and philosophize on na- 
ture’s laws, and they refer in particular to all present- 
day Organic evolutionists and their natural philosophy. 
The latter reference predominates in the use of the ma- 
terial of this manuscript. Finally, italicized terms are 
the work of the author. 

The last chapter is a kind of résumé of the whole prob- 
lem of the book. It discloses naturalism and super- 
naturalism as irreconcilable systems of thought. It 
shows that the regnance of both among men necessarily 
provokes conflict. It prophesies that ultimately a de- 
cisive battle must be fought, and it concludes that Or- 
ganic evolution is essentially unchristian in nature and 
function. 


iV 


PREFACE 


The author wishes to acknowledge his debt to many 
modern thinkers and numerous friends for materials 
and suggestions gleaned from them. 

W. Lee Rector. 





Contents 


CHAPTER 


Vill 


Preface . 

Selfishness 

God a Process or a Person 
Import of Organic Evolution 
Defects of Theistic Evolution 
Passing of Christian Doctrine 
Finite Versus the Infinite 
Christ a Fact or Fancy . 
All-but-Boneless Men 
World’s Greatest Tenereanice 


Law Versus Life 


PAGE 


. 114 
eho 
. 151 


. 180 


. 206 


vo 4 
SW thin Vip 
a ‘ 


it 


cat 


’ 


ee 


Pry Wg Ute 
CK, a 





CHAPTER I 
Selfishness 


UMAN nature is potentially a duplex in which two 

determiners of conduct reside. The one, the ego, 
motivates selfward activities and creates egoistic situa- 
tions. The other, the alter-ego, motivates otherward 
activities and creates altruistic environments. Human 
experience is really a process of translating these gifts 
into actualities. The translation of the potential into 
the actual involves the stimulation of two eternities. 
The one environs the race with egoism and stimulates 
selfish behavior. The other environs mankind with 
altruism and stimulates unselfish activity. The one 
evokes egoistic selves. The other evokes altruistic per- 
sonalities. If the first obtains over the second, then 
human behavior predominates in selfish tones. If the 
second prevails over the first, then human activities 
predominate in unselfish aspects. It is thus seen that 
each subjective determiner of human conduct has its own 
objective complement. Any comprehensive interpreta- 
tion of the facts of human experience must take cogni- 
zance of both. 

To ascertain which determiner and complementary 
eternity plays the larger role in human experience, it 
would be necessary to review in detail the historical and 
typical activities of the race. The purpose of this study, 
however, is not to compare the two but to trace the role 
of the ego in mundane activities. 

A survey of human experience, while revealing many 


[1] 


Can An Evottrionist Be A Curistian? 


good forces operating, discloses egoistic agents and situ- 
ations evilly environing mankind. It reveals a regnance 
of egoistic stimuli, a rule of egoistic urges, and a wanton 
expenditure of energy upon the present. In short, the 
survey discloses self-centered, conscienceless, blind, and 
vindictive men and women environed by the emanations 
of selfishness. Now, with egoistic nature and nurture 
in complementary and compensating roles, there is little 
wonder that self often assumes an unsocial and destruc- 
tive role. 

One school of thinkers, protesting the above appraisal 
of human behavior, asks, ‘‘Why eriticize the race for 
making a program in terms of the present? Why object 
to an individual living for himself? Is not self-preserva- 
tion the first law of nature?’’ 

Concerning these questions, much may be said. 
Granting ideal-social guidance, it is readily admitted 
that a degree of one’s egoistic desires should be gratified. 
The thoughtful, however, certainly know that the gratifi- 
cation of all selfish desires would manifestly produce 
nothing short of unvarnished or careful selfishness. 

A study of the influence of egoism upon the life of the 
race, and an analysis of its functions in the lives of in- 
dividuals and groups, forces the conclusion that selfish- 
ness 1s self-destroying. Reasons for this universal and 
undying tragedy are disclosed in the natural leadings of 
the ego. Self-ward activities are short-seeing, impover- 
ishing, and defeating. 


Selfishness Is Self-Destroying 


In the first place, selfishness 1s short-seeing. The sel- 
fish, through self-approval, unwittingly enshroud them- 


[2] 


SELFISHNESS 


selves with their own opinions and begirt themselves 
with their own individualistic notions. Such completely 
circumscribe themselves with their own mentations. 
Being so environed, their visions are abridged and their 
outlooks are obscured. Thus, self is ever limned against 
the horizon of the egoist’s perspective. Self sees self, 
approves self, and lives for self only. To such beings, 
the illimitable reaches of altruism and worth are ever 
unobservable. 

In the second place, selfishness 1s impoverishing. The 
selfish, through self-approval, throw up mental walls 
against the invasion of unselfish ideals. They conse- 
quently walk only in the light of their own counsel and 
yield only to the mandates of their own consciences. 
Now, the role of consciences whose every aspiration and 
act and whose every will and judgment outlaw unselfish- 
ness and reject altruism as mere sentimentalism, robs 
the owners of the ideational food necessary for moral 
and spiritual fatness, and eventually causes them to be- 
come morally and spiritually lean. 

All eternity discloses no real virtue that is not but- 
tressed with altruism and goodness. Altruism and good- 
ness are inseparable moral graces. Unless approved 
ideas induce unselfish conduct, they lack every element 
of real virtue. Character is enriched only as the indi- 
vidual approvingly responds to the stimulation of un- 
selfish ideals or situations, and in turn reduces his 
unselfish ideals to the conditions of every day use. Thus, 
riches of character 1s unselfishness. The race, therefore, 
lays up moral wealth only as it lives and gives. Con- 
versely, character is impoverished only as the individual 
disapprovingly responds to the stimulation of unselfish 


[3] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


ideals or situations, and in turn reduces his own selfish 
ideals to the conditions of every day use. Thus, poverty 
of character is selfishness. The race, therefore, robs 
itself of moral wealth only as tt lives to get. Thus, 
energy predominantly expended upon self robs the indi- 
vidual of needed virtue and emasculates him of needed 
worth. Selfishness 1s morally and spiritually wmpover- 
ishing. 

In the third place, selfishness 1s defeating. The selfish, 
through self-approval, reject the unselfish bequests of 
the ages, repudiate the idealism of immediate forbears, 
and scoff at the limitations of altruism. Such people, 
in yielding to the urges and stimulation of egoism, 
build lfe’s programs around self-interest. Activities 
thus actuated are ethically meritless. Hence, self-ser- 
vice, as a principle of behavior, must be universally 
unworthy. Fundamentally, then, moral victories are 
conditioned upon self-forgetting and moral tragedies 
upon self-getting. . To multiply self-forgetting is to 
strengthen moral character and to multiply self-getting 
is to weaken moral character. Self-forgetting tends to 
liberate and release, and self-getting tends to create man- 
acles, forge shackles, and fashion tentacles for men and 
institutions.  Self-getting ws thus wrong-becoming; 
hence, self-getting is self-defeating. 

Now, if selfishness obscures the visions of individuals ; 
if it shuts out the stimulation of unselfish idealism; if 
it spends energy upon self and the present; and if it 
envelops human beings in a mist and fog of egoistic 
opinions, then the race, in yielding to its urge and stimu- 
lation, obviously destroys itself in such reactions. 


[4] 


SELFISHNESS 


Attempts to realize self-satisfaction are universally 
wasteful and destructive. 

Two meaningful concepts emerge from these facts. 
First, the character of the individual waxes in worthful- 
ness just in proportion as he treads the pathways of un- 
selfishness. Second, the character of the individual 
wanes in worthfulness just in proportion as he treads 
the pathways of selfishness. As a further explanation 
of these principles, it is pertinent to note that the out- 
flowing life is the infilling life, the individual gains 
only as he loses; and that the infilling life is the out- 
flowing life, the individual loses only as he gains. It is 
well to remember that these principles of behavior are 
equally applicable to the group. 


Selfishness Is Race-Fettering 


An empiric view of human history attests the conclu- 
sion that selfishness is paradoxical. It is eternally dy- 
ing, yet immortal. The more it dies, the more it lives, 
and the more it lives, the more it destroys. 

Now, to understand this paradox, it should be re- 
membered that selfishness is not an individual act, nor 
a series of acts, but it is a subjective state, or a principle 
of behavior which urges the individual into egoistic 
activities, Such a principle ultimately vitiates indi- 
vidual activities and negates human progress. 

Human experience universally discloses the selfish 
in destructive roles. History shows that the race has 
ever been pitted against itself. It reveals man pitted 
against man, family against family, clan against clan, 
phraty against phraty, tribe against tribe, city state 
against city state, nations against nations, and leagues 


[5] 


Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHristiaAn? 


of nations against leagues of nations. Humanity has 
ever engaged in its own destruction. Death and deviltry 
have ever run riot. Desolating harvests have ever been 
produced in the soil of human selfishness. Out of the 
matrix of selfishness all struggles and deaths have come. 
Herein, the death-dealing roles of despots, absolutists, 
and imperialists find adequate explanation. 

Selfishness alone produces death-dealing despots. 
Indulgence of egoism inflates the human mind and 
dwarfs the human heart. Under the gratification of 
selfish impulses, the cravings of individuals become in- 
satiate; hence, despots resort to oppression, repression, 
and suppression to satisfy their unhallowed desires. 
Thus, peace-time populace is but chattel for inhuman 
barter, and war-time populace is but ‘‘cannon fodder’’ 
for conscienceless war lords. Despotism lives upon death! 
The tragedy, however, increases. The death nourish- 
ment for the unwary becomes the destroyer of the des- 
pots. History shows that ultimately the enslaver is 
enslaved; the destroyer is destroyed; and ‘‘the expro- 
priator is expropriated.’’ What means this? The 
answer is, the law of the harvest is inexorable. Death- 
dealing despots die of their own daggers. 

Selfishness alone produces death-dealing absolutists. 
The analogy between the despot and the absolutist is 
rather complete. Both are egoistic and selfish. Both 
think and act in terms of an enlarged self. Both are 
mentally inflated and spiritually dwarfed. Both pro- 
ject programs for selfish aggrandizement. Both create 
implements of war to enforce and guarantee selfish 
aspirations. Both hoot at the idea of war machines 


[6] 


SELFISHNESS 


being boomerangs. And both dispatch human lives with- 
out conscience or scruples. 

Evidence for these conclusions is abundant. Accord- 
ing to newspaper dispatches, Nicholas II of Russia 
caused a whole troop of his soldiery to be shot down be- 
cause it protested against his plans for a war against 
Japan. The day following this tragedy he caused 
mothers, sisters, and sweethearts, who were searching 
out their dead among the slaughtered soldiers, to be shot 
down on the same spot. By ruthlessness he overawed 
and secured obedience. But, nature collects her bills. In 
1916 the heartless monarch who had slain by the sword 
was felled by the sword. 

According to history, Belgians winked at their ruler’s 
entrance into the African Congo region. They witnessed 
Leopold II invade a sovereign state and beheld him mal- 
treat and mangle unlettered and unnumbered people in 
order to satisfy his avarice. The suffering of these 
Sudanese was almost indescribable. Nature, however, 
collects her bills. In 1914 the Belgians who had winked 
at the oppression of their ruler felt the iron heel of 
force return upon their own pates. They witnessed their 
own lands laid waste, their own cities razed to the 
ground, their own womanhood mutilated and ravished, 
their own manhood inoculated, and their own liberties all 
but destroyed. 

According to history, the Bourbons of France main- 
tained their thrones by oppression, repression, and 
suppression. By force they awed and cowed the masses. 
By force they perpetuated inequalities and exacted in- 
human tolls. On a whole, their reigns were marked by 
insolence and inhuman abuses. In 1789 a decisive re- 


[7] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


action came. The third estate overthrew the Bourbon 
dynasty and then the pent-up emotions of the outraged 
masses found expression. The leaders threw discretion 
to the winds and massacred justice by lifting up the 
guillotine. Nature collects her bills. They that had 
slain by the sword died by the sword. 

History shows that absolutists have universally fallen 
by the sword. The fate of absolute governments of the 
past is a dark and inescapable reminder of this tragic 
fact. The death-dealing activities of absolutists foretell 
their own doom. Selfishness 1s self-destroying. 

Selfishness alone produces death-dealing 1mperwalists. 
Overwhelming desires for prestige, power, and posses- 
sions are ear-marks of imperialism. Grandiose schemes 
for enlargement naturally attend such inordinate de- 
sires. Imperialistic programs tend to pit nation against 
nation, or race against race. Attempts to attain world 
supremacy are the inevitable results of imperialistic 
aspirations. When imperialists reign, world conflicts 
obtain. 

Imperialistic programs have ever been antecedent to 
wars. The King George’s, King William’s, Queen 
Anne’s, French and Indian, Revolutionary War, War of 
1812, and Spanish American War, all resulted from the 
conflicting urges of imperialistic aspirations. 

The World War was no exception to this rule. The 
existence of so many imperialistic programs made it in- 
evitable. Its ten million dead and one billion debt are 
conclusive reminders of late imperialistic folly. 


Selfishness Is Culture-W asting 
But has the race learned well its lesson? Present-day 


[8] 


SELFISHNESS 


weathervanes seem to indicate that the ways of carnality 
are immutable; or that self is an immortal nihilist. 

Another war impends. 

NO! No! says the Pacifist. 

The author, notwithstanding the Pacifist’s protest, 
importunes the reader to look well to present-day tend- 
encies. The race madly creates instruments for its own 
destruction. All nations eagerly multiply war machines. 
Actuated by self-interest, they now rush in where angels 
fear to tread. 

Present-day war machines are indeed very grave 
menaces to civilization. When the intelligence of the 
race is being consecrated to the task of creating instru- 
ments of death; when the energies of the race are being 
requisitioned for fratricidal purposes; and when the 
heart of the race is being bled white by its loveless urges, 
‘Watchman, what of the night?’’ When the black race 
moves to restore the glory of its yesterdays; when the 
yellow race clamors for world control; and when the 
white race urges itself on toward world supremacy, 
‘*Watchman, what of the night?’’ Think, will you! 
If the major movements of mankind disclose egoistic 
motwes, how is it possible to underwrite peace and pros- 
perity? Or how perpetuate the guarantees of civiliza- 
tion? Unless the nations of the earth front about, 
unless they leash their emotions and correct their think- 
ing, wholesale death is imminent. War machines im- 
poverish nations, destroy human lives, and play human 
motives down to the level of beasts. Surely, if present 
egoistic tendencies culminate, tomorrow will disclose the 
death of culture and the prostration of civilization. 

Why is the race so blind? Why risk the sacrifice of 


[9] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


the accumulated wisdom of the ages? The answer to 
this question is: Blind and destructive conduct results 
from the urges of unbridled and uncurbed carnality. 
The carnal self is a death-dealing monarch. All carnal 
weapons are ‘‘boomerangs.’’ While such weapons are 
certain and sure in dispatching the enemy, they inevit- 
ably return to the destruction of the user. Out of 
imperialistic selfishness comes crushing debts, moral 
dearth, and race death. 

The race must awake to the fact that self-interest is 
a negation of progress; that absolutism is inimicable to 
peace and prosperity; that national imperialism is a 
precursor of destruction; that carnal weapons are all 
boomerangs; and that slavery and death are corollaries 
of selfishness. 

Earnest thinkers enquire: ‘‘Is there any hope for 
permanent peace, or escape from universal strife? If 
so, why has not the race hitherto attained such a utopia? 
How explain the present regnance of self-interest’’ The 
answer to the third question involves the first and sec- 
ond; hence, an elaboration of the first two will not be 
attempted here. 

Concerning this problem, one school of thinkers asserts 
that the present role of selfishness is largely an emo- 
tional aftermath of the World War. Such an explana- 
tion is too superficial to command respect and attention. 
Suffice it to say that the World War was primarily a 
product of selfishness rather than a cause of selfishness. 
It was an occasion of selfish expression, rather than a 
cause of selfishness. 

In response to the question above, another school main- 
tains that egoistic philosophies are productive of social 


[10] 


SELFISHNESS 


unrest and internecine strife. It asserts that Judgments 
develop slowly into philosophies; that philosophies ripen 
gradually into destiny-determining beliefs; and that 
destiny-determining beliefs carry over into actualities. 
Now, the discerning will admit that egoistic philosophies 
and beliefs are strife-provoking. Obviously, then, such 
philosophies and beliefs are antecedents to wars. 

The World War was manifestly a clash between ideals. 
In its initial, if not in its final stage, it was a death- 
grapple between egoistic philosophies. If self-ward 
philosophies are fundamentally casual in the production 
of war and strife, then, how account for the existence of 
race-troubling and race-destroying beliefs ? 

The second school insists that such beliefs are a direct 
product of selfish nature yielding to selfish nurture. 
These thinkers maintain that selfish nature gives birth 
to selfish nurture, and that out of the interactions of the 
two, the world’s ills regularly come. 

Now, no explanation for the existence of race-troubling 
and race-destroying beliefs is complete which does not 
include the learning process. To be exact, people believe 
what they believe because they are taught what they are 
taught. Accordingly, philosophies and beliefs are prod- 
ucts of the teaching process. Thus, teachers become the 
out-standing evil-doers of every age. 

Why should teachers be purveyors of selfishness? 
Why should they shoulder so much responsibility for 
present-day chaos? Two fundamental reasons are 
obvious: First, the teacher is essentially selfish by nature 
and consequently yields naturally to egoistic urges and 
stimulation. Second, the teacher is essentially selfish 
by training and consequently yields habitually to ego- 


[11] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


istic motives and stimulation. Through experience such 
nature and nurture could do nothing less than develop 
egoistic or self-centered individuals. 

Self-ward thinking is a unwersal criterion of selfish- 
ness. Selfishness looks within instead of without, at 
the present instead of the future, at me instead of you. 
The number of teachers at this moment fashioning ego- 
istic philosophies for American youth is legion. These 
instructors of present-day youth laboriously and increas- 
ingly insist that the salvation of the race is in its own 
hands. That is, it must lift itself by its own bootstraps. 
Now, such teaching is obviously ethnocentric or selfish. 
When teachers turn the mind of man unto himself, they 
maximize race ego. Any teaching which causes man to 
think for, around, and unto himself lays the foundation 
for individual and race destruction. Selfishness is thus 
antecedent to death. 


Evolution Is Race-Centering 

Does present-day teaching encourage people to gratify 
selfish desires? Does the learning process tend to en- 
courage self-ward activities? Any thoughtful analysis 
of present-day movements unquestionably discloses the 
regnance of selfishness. Unpleasant though the thought 
may be, the teacher’s responsibility for much of the 
present-day turmoil is undeniable. 

Is there a causal relationship existing between present- 
day tendencies and Organic evolutionary teaching? 
Does the doctrine of Organic evolution encourage selfish- 
ness? The meaning of this doctrine ought to reveal the 
answer. 

Organic evolution as a hypothetical principle of be- 


[12] 


SELFISHNESS 


havior is professedly a natural process. It is nature un- 
folding according to law. It is, hamanly speaking, man 
using his natural gifts to hft himself. In short, it is self 
help. Thus, Organic evolutionary teaching would foster 
race egoism. 

The task of the present-day teacher is manifestly an 
environing one. If he were an Organic evolutionist, then 
his ideals would tend to be egoistic. If his ideals were 
egoistic, then he would tend to environ pupils with 
selfishness. The learner responding to such situations 
would obviously build up selfish habits. Habits as in- 
dices of character are in reality weathervanes pointing 
out either human weakness or human worth. 

Furthermore, if Organic evolutionary teachings tend 
to be egoistic, then the learning process would tend to 
hinder progress. Jt should ever be remembered that 
progress is not material prestige, position, or power, but 
it is essentially the rule of stability, happiness, and good 
will. Progress is the product of love impulses. But 
selfishness hinders love. In its last analysis, selfishness 
is an absolute negation of love. Love lives on give. 
Selfishness lives on get. The one is unselfing and the 
other is selfing. Thus, in hindering co-operation, selfish- 
ness tends to prevent progress. 

Egoism, whether individual or race, is inimicable to 
social well-being. Out of selfishness flows streams of 
lust, avarice, hate, war, and famine. Out of it flows 
rivers of doubt, disease, dearth, debt, and death. 
Organic evolutionary teaching logically turns man’s 
thought with added interest and strength unto himself. 
Thus, evolution, by encouraging selfishness, would in- 
crease the streams of human lust, avarice, hate, war, and 


[13] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? 


famine, and would swell the rivers of doubt, disease, 
dearth, debt, and death. Under such evolutionary 
teaching, the selfish becomes more selfish, the destroyer 
more destructive, and the seducer more seductive. The 
role of Organic evolution is thus a lamentable and de- 
structive one. If by means of its influence, the messages 
of our yesterdays are universally belittled, the philoso- 
phies of our past are ruthlessly frayed and frazzled, and 
the moorings of our civilization are wantonly cut, then 
the normal role of Organic evolution is inconoclastic. 
Under its influence, self becomes a greater nihilist. 

According to the meaning of Organic evolution, its 
influence would obviously encourage egoism. It chal- 
lenges the race to help itself. The race naturally tends 
to accept the challenge. Moreover, it tends to accept 
the challenge literally. The average man, if told to help 
himself, will do so. As a rule, self-help needs no extra 
encouragement. 

According to the self-help ideal, Organic evolution 
importunes the home to help itself. It logically pleads 
with each family to discover the laws of nature, to adjust 
its conduct to their guidance, and then, to help itself. 

It importunes the school to help itself. It logically 
pleads with the school to look well to nature’s develop- 
ment, to guide the child according to natural law, to 
educate it in harmony with its own nature, and then, to 
help itself. 

It importunes business to help itself. It logically 
pleads with business to search out the productive laws 
of the universe, to harness the forces of nature, to adjust 
activities to the principles found therein, and then, to 


[14] 


SELFISHNESS 


help itself. Its importunity is really, ‘‘Go and get. Be 
sure and get.’’ 

It importunes the state to help itself. It logically 
pleads with the state to lean not upon others, to trust 
only the resident capacity of its constituency, to adjust 
its activities to natural law, and then, to help itself. 

Finally, it importunes the religionist to help himself. 
It logically pleads with the worshipper to trust not a 
supernatural being, to accept not divine fiats, but to 
live according to the mandates of natural law, and then, 
to help himself. 

The logic of these conclusions is aptly revealed in 
Positivism. Positivism is a naturalistic religion. Its 
founder, Auguste Comte, dared to accept fully the logic 
of the Organic evolutionary hypothesis and, in turn, set 
forth a system of worship based upon it. According to 
his teaching, humanity is God. Sin is failure to become 
human. Salvation is becoming human. And immor- 
tality is living in one’s influence after death. Thus, it 
is seen that Auguste Comte centers salvation in the race. 
Positivism is the race trying to save itself through wor- 
shipping itself. 

Some of America’s greatest educators do great vio- 
lence to logic, when they seek to make Organic evolution 
contain the concept of objective immortality. Immor- 
tality implies other-worldly existence of personality after 
its earthly life. Organic evolution, being simply a this- 
worldly doctrine, is subjective; that is, it assumes only 
the continuity or immortality of ideas. Christianity, 
being both a this-worldly and an other-worldly doctrine, 
is both subjective and objective. That is, it assumes the 
continuity or immortality, not only of ideas, but of 


[15] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


personality as well. It is thus seen that Organic evolu- 
tion, in denying objective immortality, shuts the race 
up to itself. Therefore, such evolutionary teaching 
tends to be race-centering. 

To conclude, both logic and experience indict Organic 
evolution as being an egoistic doctrine. Granting this 
indictment to be true, it follows that an application of 
the principles of Organic evolution would encourage self- 
destruction, race fetters, and cultural death. Its role 
would manifestly be unsocial and anti-benevolent. 

The author, while accepting a meaningful function 
for natural law, believes that its role is inadequate to 
explain life’s processes, and that its functions must be 
intelligently and externally controlled. In short, he 
believes that a rational interpretation of the universe 
compels the recognition of an Infinite Personality, creat- 
ing, controlling, and crowning. Now, if a rational inter- 
pretation of the universe is grounded in personality, then 
nature’s law becomes the gift of an intelligent mind. 
Therefore, intelligent guidance logically supplants the 
accidental variations of natural selection. Law, the 
creature, becomes subject to the person, the Creator. 
Now, if this conclusion is granted, supernaturalism be- 
comes an inevitable fact in the life of the race. In the 
last analysis, personality alone creates, controls, and 
crowns. 

Finally, the author believes that real knowledge and 
wisdom, moral strength and integrity are inadequately 
provided for by the functions of natural law and that 
true character can only be guaranteed by the person and 
principles of the Prince of Peace. 

Subsequent chapters of this book will attempt to show 


[16] 


SELFISHNESS 


that naturalism is ultimately impotent; that a rational 
interpretation of the universe must be grounded in per- 


sonality; that Organic evolution outlaws supernatural- — 


ism, the deity of Christ, and orthodox Christian doc- 
trine ; that Organic evolutionary science is founded upon 
supposition, inference, and guesses; that it is an irra- 
tional attempt to explain animate and inanimate forms; 
that it greatly errs in its attempt to substitute the rule 
of Homo-Sapiens for the rule of Homo-Christus; that 
the world’s greatest need is the dominion of an Infinite 
Personality; that Christ, the God-man, outlawed by 
Organic evolution, is the central, supreme, and superla- 
tive fact of the ages; that a decisive conflict between 
Organic evolutionists and supernaturalists is inevitable; 
and finally, that orthodox Christians must renew their 
allegiance to their Master and burnish their weapons 
for service, or else witness the program of the Son of 
Righteousness pass into disrepute among the sons of 
men. 


[17] 


CHAPTER II 


God a Process or a Person 


RGANIC evolution, as shall later be seen, logically 

outlaws the idea of a personal God. It assumes 
that law is the first and final cause of all things which 
are. It further assumes that the existence of a Trans- 
cendent Personality outside of and influencing nature’s 
processes would be a source of interference. Such 
assumptions naturally lead Organic evolutionists to 
attribute to natural law the determining role in the 
development of the physical and mental factors of the 
universe. 

In the light of these assumptions, the God of Organic 
evolution is but a natural process. Accordingly, all of 
the forms, forces, and functions of the universe are God. 
In contrast with this position, orthodox Christians 
assume that God is a person. Accordingly, all of the 
forms, forces, and functions of the universe are mani- 
festations of an Infinite Personality. The one asserts 
that a rational interpretation of the universe cannot be 
had apart from the undisturbed functions of natural 
law. The other asserts that a rational interpretation of 
the universe cannot be given apart from the fact of a 
planful and functional Personality. 

Relative to these assumptions, two all-important prob- 
lems appear for the consideration of earnest enquirers; 
namely, (1) Is God simply a natural process? or (2) Is 
God an Infinite Personality? Correlative with these 


[18] 


Gop A Procsss orn A PERSON 


questions are two subordinate ones; namely, (1) Can a 
natural process satisfactorily explain all the forms, 
forces, and functions of the universe? or (2) Must an 
Infinite Personality be requisitioned to explain them? 
The answers to the last two questions provide the an- 
swers to the first two. 

In rejecting a natural process as inadequate to satis- 
factorily explain all of the phenomena of the universe, 
the author refutes it by discrediting natural selection. 
Lest some one think that natural selection has been 
given up by modern scientists, and accuse the author of 
creating a straw man just to knock him down, the 
author herewith submits a number of testimonials to 
show that the doctrine of natural selection dominates 
the thinking of the major scientists of this age. 

Davison, ‘‘ Practical Zoology,’’ 1906, quotes: 


‘* “From lower to higher, 
From simple to complete, 
This is the pathway of eternal feet ; 
From earth to lichen, 
From herb to towering tree, 
From cell to creeping worm, 
From man to what shall be; 
This is the lesson of all time, 
This is the teaching of the voice sublime.’ ”’ 


Conklin, ‘‘The Evolution of Man,’’ 1922, says: 


‘Unfortunately our knowledge of the causes of evolu- 
tion is not very complete, but the majority of biologists 
agree that inherited variations, or mutations, constitute 
the building materials of evolution, while natural selec- 
tion, or the elumination of the unfit, 1s the workman or 
architect that selects or rejects these materials. . . . The 


[19] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


fundamental principles in all kinds of evolution are 
similar and if mutations and new Mendelian combina- 
tions, but not fluctuations, are the materials of physical 
evolution, and natural selection is the builder, it is 
altogether probable that the same is true of intellectual 
and social evolution. ...If mutations are the ma- 
terials, natural selection is the architect and director of 
evolution, for although it does not originate fitness it 
continually eliminates the unfit and in the long run pre- 
serves only the fit. In certain quarters it has been 
fashionable of late to decry the importance of natural 
selection, but more and more, biologists are coming to 
recognize that it is the most important directing and 
perfecting factor in evolution. .. . Natwral selection in 
its widest meaning involves not merely the over-produc- 
tion of individuals and the consequent struggle for ex- 
istence with elimination of the unfit, as Darwin formu- 
lated it, but it also includes the overproduction of many 
vital activities, such as motions and reactions, with the 
elimination of the unfit, as in the process known as ‘trial 
and error.’ Thus useful behavior is the residue left after 
useless responses are eliminated, and it is not necessary 
to hold with Darwin that fitness is always the result of 
the elimination of unfit persons. It is often the result of 
the elimination of unfit reactions. In short, natural 
selection is not only personal but also intra-personal.’’ 


Averill, ‘‘Elements of Educational Psychology,’’ 1924, 
says: 


‘We cannot avoid the assumption, inasmuch as every 
person is possessed of substantially the same instinctive 
urges, that these represent very definite attempts on the 
part of Nature to equip her children with those funda- 
mental controls and adjustments of conduct which a 
long racial past has demonstrated to be of import- 
ance in the conquest of life... . As we stated above, 
valuable experiences which the unknown ages have 


[20] 


Gop A Procsss orn A PERSON 


brought into the life of the race are carefully preserved 
by Nature in the nervous system. Were this not the 
case, each succeeding generation must grope about in 
blind trial and error for guideposts and stepping-stones 
by which to regulate behavior. Nature 1s, however, too 
zealous for the ultwmate rise and progression of her chil- 
dren to leave it all to chance. Inke a good antiquarian 
she casts about for whatever mementos of the past 
are worth preserving, and stores them carefully away 
in her infallible storehouse, the neurone; within its fast- 
nesses are the faint and often undecipherable memorials 
of a mighty and primitive age wherein the urge of rest- 
less activity, necessitous but exhilarating change, zeal- 
ous amassing and anxious possessing, wild approbation 
and tyrannical mastery, paralyzing foreboding and eager 
eurlosity—along with numerous other primal impulsions 
—meant survival and comfort for the individual and his 
group. What wonder, in the ight thrown upon them by 
these racial origins and evolutions, that the innate ten- 
dencies of Nature’s child—inevitable ontogenetic product 
of cumulative ages of phyletic accretions—are found by 
every teacher and every parent to be strong and insa- 
tiable! * * * Only a small portion of the child’s original 
nature is apparent in infancy. Nature holds in reserve 
much for later stages, revealing at first only such inner 
impulsions as can find expression and_ satisfaction 
through the present sharply restricted possibilities of 
the organism. * * * As the horizon is pushed out further 
and still further from the immediate self, new interests 
come in to hold sway over the evolving child. The in- 
stincts of the herd make their appearance near the be- 
ginning of pubescence, accompanied by those of keen 
rivalry, teasing, ownership, ete. Tardiest of all is the 
sex urge, faint primordial rumblings of which are felt 
in earliest childhood, but the full power of which does 
not manifest itself until the period of adolescence is well 
entered upon. Thus Nature does not turn the whole 
force of the racial past into the sluiceways of life at one 


[21] 


Oan An Evoxuttionist Br A CHristIan ? 


flood tide; rather, many tides are repeatedly freaghted 
with it, one bearing in its burden only to ebb gradually 
and be followed presently by another until at length, 
after the organism has been properly made ready, the 
gates are swung wide and the great trust of Nature has 
been discharged.’’ 


J. Arthur Thomson, ‘‘Concerning Evolution,’’ 1925, 
breaks with Bateson, and contends that natural selection 
increasingly commands the approval of scientists. He 
says: 


‘“We do not share the view, often expressed in recent 
years, that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection has be- 
come outworn. If mutations have been common through- 
out the evolution-process, if a new position of organic 
stability has often been reached suddenly, if the Pro- 
teus has frequently been leaping as well as creeping, 
then the burden that the theory of Natural Selection has 
had to bear will be less than Darwin believed; but even 
De Vries, one of the founders of the ‘Mutation-Theory,’ 
declares that sifting must still be regarded as essential. 
‘The origin of new species, which is in part the effect 
of mutability, is, however, due mainly to natural selection. 
Mutability provides the new characters and new elemen- 
tary species. . Natural selections, on the other hand, 
decides what is to live and what is to die.’ * * * The fact 
is, we are returning to an appreciation of the subtlety 
of Darwin’s concept of selection. It is not one process, 
but many—lethal and reproductive, for instance; it 
operates in relation to an intricate web of life, and a 
Shibboleth may have survival value; there has been an 
evolution of sieves as well as of the material to be sifted. 
As we have seen, the struggle for existence, in the course 
of which selection occurs, includes not only competitive 
but symbiotic, not only egoistic but altruistic reactions, 
and both pay!’’ 


[22] 


Gop A Procsss or A PERson 


Bergen and, Davis, ‘‘Principles of Botany,’’ 1906, say: 


‘“In the time of Linnaeus, who lived in the eighteenth 
century, almost all naturalists believed that the species 
or kinds of animals and plants had never changed in 
their characters during their long history on the earth. 
They believed that new kinds could only arise by special 
acts of creation. This doctrine of special creation gave 
way to the present belief in organic evolution, or the 
theory of descent, chiefly through the work of Charles 
Darwin, whose famous book, The Origin of Species, 
appeared in 1859. The theories of organic evolution hold 
that all the existing species of animals and plants have 
been derived or evolved through the geological ages from 
the simplest forms of life in the beginning.’’ 


Locy, ‘‘Biology and Its Makers,’’ 1908, quoting Weis- 
mann, says: 


‘‘The conception of an evolution of life upon the earth 
reaches far beyond the bounds of any single science, and 
influences our whole realm of thought. It means nothing 
less than the elimination of the miraculous from our 
knowledge of nature, and the placing of the phenomena 
of life on the same plane as the other natural processes, 
as having been brought about by the same forces and 
being subject to the same laws.”’ 


Locy himself says: 


‘“The intensive scrutiny to which different theories 
of organic evolution have been subjected, has served to 
focalize attention on various aspects of species forming. 
Natural selection stands forth as the agency to direct the 
general course of evolution after it is started, while as 
regards the beginnings, there are other important ques- 
tions as the causes of variability, that await further 
investigation. ”’ 


[23] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


LaRue, ‘‘Psychology for Teachers,’’ 1920, says: 


‘‘Any animal that remains fixed to one spot, as the 
sponge does, has less need of an adaptive system than 
does one that undertakes to guide itself freely about its 
environment and find its food. Such a creature, without 
sense organs, would bump into its surroundings and 
flounder into danger on every hand, to say nothing of 
missing many a good meal. Nature’s way of meeting 
this emergency is to develop around the bumping spots 
and the food-finding end of the animal, cells sensitive 
enough to receive impressions from the environment, in 
other words, nerve cells. These nerve cells enable it to 
get advance news of whatever is about, flee the bad and 
seek the good.’’ 


Gates, ‘‘ Psychology for Students of Education,’’ 1923, 
says: 


‘Just as the human eye has a long evolutionary his- 
tory, going back to the simple pigmented cells of the 
jellyfish, so forms of behavior, such as ‘withdrawing re- 
actions,’ have evolved from lower organisms. Most 
profitable, of course, is the study of the higher forms of 
animals, our ape-like and other simian ancestry.’’ 


Pillsbury, ‘‘Education as the Psychologist Sees It,’’ 
1925, says: 


‘Instincts are the results of the inheritance of changes 
which the organism has undergone. They originated by 
chance and persist because they make the organism more 
likely to survive or to survive in greater numbers than 
were the other members of the race or species. * * * The 
problem of instinct is to determine how these particular 
sense organs chance to be connected with these muscles. 
The answer originally must go back to the unknown factors 


[24] 


Gop A Procsss orn A PERsonN 


in the evolutionary forces that work upon the individual. 
The biologist now insists that the environment does not 
directly produce any change in the organism, all it does 
is to select those organisms or those changes in organisms 
which happen to develop as a result of the at present 
unknown changes that take place in the individual in 
the course of development. If it chanced that an organ- 
ism was provided with a nervous system that drove him 
to acts that were dangerous—that led to his destruction 
—he would be killed; none of his kind would survive. If 
on the contrary, as hold for the most part, the acts that 
his nervous system compels him to make serve the needs 
of the organism, he will survive. The evolution of in- 
stincts must have been closely connected with the evolu- 
tion of the organism. * * * Metaphorically one may think 
of instincts as the result of a process of trial and error 
on the part of Nature, or of the physical causes that 
really constitute Nature. When the combination of 
internal conditions upon which inheritance depends 
chances to give rise to an organism with a nervous 
system of a type to make it respond in a way suited to 
its environment, it will live. When the responses that 
it must make bring it into serious conflict with its 
environment, it will die. In this way one may picture 
life as the reward of chancing to develop a nervous sys- 
tem that shall give rise to suitable instinctive responses 
to the environment in which the individual lives, and 
death as the punishment for developing a nervous sys- 
tem that makes necessary instinctive responses seriously 
unsuited to the environment. We need not consider the 
justice of rewarding or punishing for the outcome of 
conditions that cannot be helped, for ours is not a meta- 
phor. Suffice rt to indicate that as a result of the myriad 
chances of chemical combinations, and the long continued 
action of selection, we find the members of the present 
generation armed with a set of instinctive tendencies that 
adjust them reasonably well to the environment in which 
they live.’’ 


[25] 


Can An Evouutionist Bs A CHRISTIAN? 


The first four witnesses may be characterized as 
orthogenetic and the remainder as fortuitous evolution- 
ists. Both groups fall into the Organic category. 

Orthogenetic evolution personalizes nature by assum- 
ing the universe’s processes to be more or less intelligent 
ones. Fortuitous evolution impersonalizes nature by 
assuming the universe’s processes to be accidental ones. 
With the one, the universe’s changes are telic. With the 
other, they are accidental. With the one, nature selects 
intelligently. With the other, nature selects accidentally. 
Both classes, however, concur in some things. Both 
refuse to recognize a supernatural God. Both reject 
creation and revelation by divine fiat. Both assume 
that nature works through natural law. And both 
assume that natural selection is the architect and director 
of the universe’s processes. 

Data showing natural selection to be the guiding fac- 
tor in the unfolding of the universe are everywhere in 
evidence. Other eminent scientists than those quoted 
sanction this conclusion. Finding that modern scientists 
agree that natural selection is the primal factor in Or- 
ganic evolution, or in nature’s processes, the author pro- 
ceeds to refute it without apology. 


God a Process 


As above indicated, Organic evolution logically 
assumes that God is simply a natural process. That. is, 
He is energy, mind, and matter in function. Is this 
evolutionary contention true? In order to gratify the 
reader’s interest in this problem a brief survey of 
related data follows. 

Note that Organic evolution assumes that all the 


[26] 


Gop A Procsss or A PErRson 


forms, forces, and functions of the universe, whether in 
their broader or narrower aspects, are end-results of a 
natural process. That is, the astral worlds, the vegetable 
kingdom, the animal kingdom, the human kingdom, and 
human institutions are products of natural selection. 

But, what does this process mean? Is its import of 
vital significance to mankind? That these questions 
may be rationally answered, a survey of the meaning of 
Darwin’s natural selection follows: 

In the first place, natural selection means that develop- 
ment is the end-result of the chance functions of natural 
law. Accordingly, all of the forms of the universe are 
products of accidental variations. To get the signifi- 
cance of this statement it is necessary to view it against 
the background of scientific judgment. Science teaches 
that the universe, in both its broader and narrower 
aspects, discloses order, designs, patterns, and plans. 
Granting the existence of such planful forms and 
accounting for them in terms of natural law, it obviously 
follows that Organic evolution makes blind forces funce- 
tion intelligently ; it makes accidents become the father 
of plans; and it makes fortuitous variations select as 
personality. Organic evolution thus makes an unintelli- 
gent cause produce an intelligent effect. The planful 
umnwerse thus becomes the product of planless law. To 
explain order, design, patterns, and plans in terms of 
accident, chance, or fortuitous variations is untenable. 
Reason and experience outlaw such an explanation. 

In the second place, natural selection means that 
decision is the end-result of the chance functions of nat- 
ural law. Accordingly, human mentations are acci- 
dental. Consequently, the volitional activities of the 


[27] 


Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


race are blindly induced, the judgments of the race 
are products of fate, and the events of the race are but 
end-results of man’s involuntary responses to the urges 
of natural law. Thus, decisions are products of blind 
processes, not personalities. Programs are products of 
blind-sight, not foresight. Accordingly, the choice of 
all human activities and relationships is thrust upon 
individuals without their will or consent. 

But such a function destroys every vestige of self- 
determination. Sovereign wills become _ subjects. 
Accordingly, life’s programs are not individually chosen 
but naturally imposed. Every decision, every judg- 
ment, every purpose of the race is simply an end-result 
of the blind selections of natural law. But to rule 
completely out of human life the principle of free 
choice is to enslave the race. Reason and philosophy 
both indict such procedure. 

In the third place, natural selection means that char- 
acter is the end-result of the chance functions of natural 
law. Human integrity is thus accidental. Accordingly, 
the powers and habits of the individual are pre-ordained 
by the selective functions of natural law. The human 
mind, the human will, the human emotion, all are off- 
_ springs of the natural process. If chance happens to | 
favor the individual, then he may be reckoned among 
the gods. If chance be against him, then he may be nil 
among men. 

But experience shows that the individual is more or 
less the architect of his own destiny. He is a thinking 
being. He develops ideals and gives them concrete ex- 
pression. Each person, to a greater or less degree, gar- 
ners his own capital, gathers his own material, builds 


[28] 


Gop A Proczss or A PERSON 


his own roadbed, manufactures his own train, and drives 
his own engine into the station of success or failure. 
Individuals, conscientiously giving expression to their 
planful thoughts, determine more or less their own 
character. 

In the fourth place, natural selection means that 
destiny is the end-result of the chance functions of nat- 
ural law. Accordingly, human destiny is accidentally 
induced. If the conduct of individuals is absolutely 
determined by natural law, if they have no power to fix 
goals or to choose ultimate residence, and if volitional 
activities are blindly induced by natural selection, then 
success or failure, victory or defeat, is beyond the power 
of individuals to determine. Heaven or Hell is beyond 
their power to choose. Self-determination being com- 
pletely outlawed, individuals are completely chained by 
law. Eternal servitude marks their footsteps. The law 
of fate is the law of their life. If their future is re- 
~ nowned, all honor must be ascribed to nature’s law. If 
their future is inglorious, the responsibility for the same 
must be attributed to the same source. If fate is master, 
then human glory is colorless. 

But such a function destroys individual responsibility. 
If the principle of self-determination is destroyed, then 
each individual must be absolved from all responsibility 
for his acts. 

In the light of natural selection, governments loom 
as huge jokes. They exist to guarantee something which 
obviously cannot exist. To illustrate, civil and penal 
law exists to guarantee the rule of justice. Now, if the 
chance functions of law destroy individual responsibility 
for conduct, then there can be no such a thing as guilt. 


[29] 


Can An Evouutionist Bs A CHRISTIAN ? 


If there is no such a thing as guilt, then there can be no 
injustice to prevent or justice to enforce. Accordingly, 
natural selection absolutely subverts the moral aim of 
government, and completely outlaws the moral and reli- 
gious heritage of the race. 

In the light of natural selection, morality is a huge 
joke. Morality constitutes the race’s judgments as to 
right and wrong. Its tabooes and sanctions are gover- 
nors of human conduct. As an institution, it exists to 
guarantee the regnance of right over wrong. But if 
right and wrong cannot exist, then morality becomes a 
leech upon civilization. Such, indeed, was the conclusion 
of Rousseau, who, in his zeal for naturalism, exclaimed, 
‘‘Man is free but is everywhere found in chains.’’ 
Accordingly, the race enslaves itself by its own ethics. 

In the light of natural selection, religion is a huge 
joke. Where there is no responsibility for individual 
acts, there can be no sin. Where there is no sin there 
ean be no sanctions. Where there are no sanctions there 
ean be no rewards. And where there are no rewards, 
there can be no Heaven or Hell. 

If natural selection, through destroying individual 
responsibility for conduct, outlaws justice, morality, and 
religious sanctions, then it removes all restraints to hu- 
man behavior and fosters anarchism and death. If 
tabooes and sanctions are destroyed, it manifestly follows 
that every individual becomes a law unto himself; hence, 
the obvious leadings of natural selection are anarchic 
and chaotic. Let the world rid itself of such heartless 
nihilism ! 

Doubtless Orthogenetic Organic evolutionists would 
protest this evaluation of natural selection on the ground 


[30] 


Gop A Process or A PERSON 


that they posit purpose in natural processes. The 
thoughtful, however, will remember that they admit a 
major role for chance changes. Surely, any chance 
changes in natural processes outlaw the claims of super- 
naturalism and, at the same time, minimize the value of 
purpose in nature’s behavior. Chance outlaws choice. 

But do these logical implications satisfy reason and 
philosophy? Will chance, as a vital functionary and as 
a selective principle of behavior, ever satisfy any honest 
seeker-after-truth that it is the determiner of life and 
its forms? Can any possible mental rummagings or ex- 
plorations or demonstrations make accident, chance, or 
fortuitous change to be the determiners of order, designs, 
patterns, and plans? The verdict of reason and philoso- 
phy is that planful orders and forms cannot be satisfac- 
torily explained by planless law. Therefore, the concept 
of God as a natural process must be tabooed. 


G od a Person 


If reason tabooes the concept of God as a natural proe- 
ess, and outlaws the idea of accidents, chance, or for- 
tuitous variations as being the determiners of planful 
forms, forces, and functions, then it becomes reasonable 
for the earnest enquirer to explore the data offered in 
support of supernaturalism. Supernaturalists contend 
that a rational interpretation of the universe must be 
grounded in personality, and they introduce four wit- 
nesses in support of their contention; namely, Reason, 
Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation. 


Witness of Reason 
After exploring the heavens and the earth and exam- 


[31] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Ba A CHRISTIAN ? 


ining forms appearing within the limits of human activi- 
ties, Reason concludes that the. universe is an orderly 
system. The study of the heavens universally discloses 
planful forms and functions. Every astral body has an 
individual orbit. Every star has a panoply of glory. 
Every thule radiates heavenly lumination. Every orb 
hangs upon nothing and is bound inextricably to every 
other orb with lines of invisible and intangible energy. 
Moreover, every heavenly body co-operates with every 
other heavenly body in translating the sun’s light into 
the life of men. The heavens manifestly disclose a plan- 
ful order. Reason insists that such order implies the 
existence of an orderer. 
Mark Twain, Paine’s ‘‘Mark Twain,’’ says: 


‘*No one who thinks can imagine the universe made by 
chance. It is too nicely assembled and regulated. There 
is, of course, a great Master mind.’’ 


Candid answers to the following questions ought to 
have significant bearing upon the issues involved. 
Reader friend, could you create the astral bodies, put 
them in the heavens, establish their orbits, and determine 
their goings? No! Do you know of anyone who could? 
No! Do you know of anyone who knows of anyone who 
could? No! Now, if the heavens are planful and fune- 
tion harmoniously, and you yourself, or your friend, or 
your friend’s friend, could not make, order, or determine¢ 
their functions, then must you not admit that such an 
orderly universe implies the existence of an intelligent 
orderer, and that such a maker and mover must mani- 
festly be a Transcendent Being? In the light of the 
above, must you not confess your own impotency, and, 


[32] 


Gop A Procrss orn A PERson 


at the same time, confess that the existence of the uni- 
verse and its order implies that One 7s who is potent ? 

Again, the animal kingdom shows design. A micro- 
scopic study of animal cells discloses such designs, cor- 
relations, beauty, symmetry, and co-operation in cell 
activity that the human mind stands helpless before such 
planful art. Normal Histology, a biological course regu- 
larly offered among academic studies, ought to convince 
any honest seeker-after-truth that no multiplied millions 
of accidental variations could account for the designs, 
correlations, beauty, symmetry, and co-operative func- 
tions of these little microscopic bodies. 

Reader friend, could you make, correlate, and estab- 
lish the co-operative functions of animal cells? No! 
Do you know of anyone who could? No! Do you know 
of anyone who knows of anyone who could? No! But 
these microscopic cells are fashioned after designs. Back 
of every design must be a designer. Now, if you your- 
self, or your friend, or your friend’s friend could not 
make, correlate, and establish the functions of these little 
infinitesimal cells, then Reason insists that you must 
admit that there is One who did, and that He who did is 
a Transcendent Personality. 

Again, take the color schemes disclosed in the animal 
world. Nature’s camouflage is so complete and perfect 
as never to be even approximated by the hand of man. 
The tree frog, the squirrel, the partridge, the reptile, 
etc., all show a color scheme so complete and so blended 
with their environments as to convince the thoughtful 
of the existence of an Infinite Personality. The human 
camouflage in coloring is but an attempt to approximate 


[33] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


the work of an Infinite Hand in nature’s planful law of 
blending. 

Finally, the vegetable kingdom shows plans. Every 
vegetable form discloses a plan. Every leaf, every bud, 
every petal, every fruit reveals patterns and plans. 
Reason insists that back of every plan must be a planner. 
Now, dear reader, could you make these plans? No! Do 
you know of anyone who could? No! Do you know of 
anyone who knows of anyone who could? No! Now, if 
you, or your friend, or your friend’s friend could not 
create these forms, correlate them, and establish their 
functions, then, since they exist, must you not admit that 
there is One who did? Since vegetable forms are plan- 
ful and since you confess your inability to create these 
planful forms, Reason insists that a supernatural being 
must be requisitioned to explain them. 

In conclusion, Reason grounds decision, development, 
character, and destiny in personality. Back of all plans, 
and processes, and persons, according to the voice of 
Reason, is an Infinite Personality. The study shows 
that physical forms, forces, and functions do exist, and 
that human mind and human power are impotent to 
fashion and fix the universe with its heavenly and 
earthly forms. Hence, Reason insists that an empiric 
interpretation of the above named data forces the 
requisition of an Infinite Personality to explain them. 
Or that a rational interpretation of the universe must be 
grounded in One who thinks, and in One who has power 
to act. 


Witness of Philosophy 
The philosopher is ever confronted with the task of 


[34] 


Gop A Process orn A PERSon 


interpreting data. Experience has wrought out a certain 
method of approach and attack. Comprehended within 
the philosophic point of view are typical facts concerning 
problems, procedure, and personality. 

Facts for philosophic interpretation are typical human 
nature, typical human needs, and typical human expe- 
rience. These facts are manifestly involved in the uni- 
verse of reality and truth. According to Horne’s 
‘*Philosophy of Education,’’ three philosophic questions 
inescapably arise in a survey of observable, investigative, 
and experimental facts: (1) What is reality? (2) Does 
all fact point toward an eternal unity? and (8) What 
is absolute truth ? 

What 1s reality? Is it perceived facts? Is it some- 
thing that is limited to human experience? If reality is 
something that is limited to human experience, then the 
phenomena lying beyond the present reach of human 
mentations are to all intents and purposes non-existent. 
According to this interpretation there is no reality apart 
from an intelligent human response. Such an interpre- 
tation manifestly abridges reality. It appears more ade- 
quate to say that reality 1s what 1s. But, what is cer- 
tainly reflects intelligence; hence, reality roots itself in 
personality. 

Does all fact point toward an eternal unity? The 
approach to the meaning of fact is through typical data. 
The scientific attack upon fact is through induction and 
empiricism. Through inductive processes deductions 
are derived. Through tested experiences certain forms 
and forces are viewed as typical ones. That is, they repre- 
sent more or less universal habits or activities of man- 
kind. For instance, scientists go into certain sections 


[35] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHRIstIaAn ? 


of England, France, Russia, Asia, South America, and 
North America, and find homes established upon the 
mating principle of one wife and one husband. They 
conclude that these represent a typical form of mar- 
riage, and that the universal law of mating is monogamy. 
Upon the basis of their findings they assume that the 
part is symbolic of the whole. Again, scientists visit 
the slum districts of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, 
New Orleans, etc., and find gambling dens obtaining in 
each and all. Upon the basis of their findings, they: 
conclude that gambling obtains in all slums. Hence, 
they assume that the part is symbolic of the whole. 

Now, the philosopher applies this principle of proce- 
dure in his approach and attack upon philosophic prob- 
lems. He assumes that the part implies the existence of 
the whole, that the relative implies the existence of the 
absolute, and that the visible implies the existence of the 
invisible. | 

In actual life, the philosopher discovers that human 
nature is equipped with mind, energy, and love. In- 
vestigations reveal each attribute to be relative. Upon 
the basis of the above assumptions, he concludes that the 
existence of relative human mind implies the existence 
of an absolute mind, that the existence of relative human 
power implies the existence of absolute power, and that 
the existence of relative human love implies the existence 
of absolute love. Hence, these typical aspects of human 
nature, each respectively, imply the existence of an om- 
niscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Personality. Typi- 
cal human nature thus implies the existence of an abso- 
lute God. It follows from this that a philosophic inter- 


[36] 


Gop A Procsss or A PrERson 


pretation of the universe grounds all in an Infinite 
Personality. 

In actual life, the philosopher perceives human beings 
with typical and universal needs. He sees man impor- 
tuning provision and protection, redemption and direc- 
tion, and conversion and consolation. 

Human need importunes provision and protection. 
The power of the race to provide these is relative. Man- 
kind satisfies them in part, not in whole. The race’s 
lack must be supplied; hence, this typical need demands 
the existence of an absolute provider and protector. 
Accordingly, there must be an Infinite God who assumes 
the role of a Father to earthly people. 

Human need importunes redemption and direction. 
The ability of the race to unshackle itself is measurably 
ereat. Some of its fetters are humanly breakable, while 
others are not. This relative role of human redemption 
and direction implies the existence of a supernatural 
redeemer. Accordingly, there must be an Infinite God, 
who assumes the role of a Son to earth-bound pilgrims. 

Human need importunes conversion and consolation. 
The equipment of the race to convince and convert is 
markedly great. Its resources, however, are inadequate 
to remove all doubts and yearnings from the human 
mind and heart. Hence, the existence of unrequited 
doubts and heartaches implies the existence of One with 
power to convert and to cheer. Accordingly, there must 
be an Infinite God, who assumes, the role of a Comforter, 
the Spirit, to storm-tossed, eternity-bound people. 

It follows from the implication of these typical human 
needs that they imply the existence of a triune God, 
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. A 


[37] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


philosophic interpretation of typical needs grounds their 
explanation in an absolute Trinity. 

Finally, in actual life, the philosopher observes the 
race in its typical experiences. He sees human beings 
with relative power inventing, manipulating, and mas- 
tering. On the basis of the part being symbolic of the 
whole, he contends that if finite creatures can cause the 
winds to yield their blessing, the waters to surrender 
their energy, the atmosphere to give up its electrical 
potency, the earth to increase its bounty, and the moun- 
tains to deliver up their priceless treasures, then it 
would not be unreasonable to asume that the Maker of 
man could control the thunderbolt, calm the storms, still 
the waves, send the harvest, and gather wealth from the . 
bosom of the sea. The philosopher concludes that the 
inventive, manipulative, and mastering activities of the 
race imply the existence of an Infinite Personality, 
creating, controlling, and crowning. 

What is absolute truth? Is it perceived reality? Is 
it meaningful objective and subjective phenomena? Is 
it forms of the universe discerned as symbols or mani- 
festations or patterns? Is it neural habits risen to the 
plane of consciousness? Is it actually experiential ? 

To limit truth to human experience is to abridge it. 
Such procedure manifestly cireumscribes the outlook of 
the race. The limitations of human activity would pre- 
vent the realization of a perfect vision. Accordingly, 
the race would be destined to run its course in the twi- 
light of truth. It would have to forego the blessings of 
truth’s noonday radiations. 

Would it not be more adequate to say that absolute 
truth is an embodiment of the life of an Infinite 


[38] 


Gop A Proczss on A PERSON 


Personality which manifests Himself in the forms, 
forces, and functions of the universe? In the light of this 
definition, the symbols or manifestations or patterns dis- 
closed in the universe become indices pointing toward 
absolute truth. 

The universe as it exists at any moment is admittedly 
an effect. An effect, however, is but a half truth, since 
it is but an outer manifestation of an inner cause. 
Accordingly, absolute truth is both subjective and ob- 
jective. Subjectively, it is a cause, and objectively, it is 
an effect. Thus, whole truth comprehends both the 
cause and the effect. It is important at this point to 
remember that the cause is logically antecedent to the 
effect. Now, since the universe as an effect reflects in- 
telligence, there must be antecedent to it an intelligent 
cause. Therefore, absolute truth must be grounded in 
personality. To sum up, one is justified in saying that 
absolute truth is Infinite Personality manifesting Him- 
self in the forms, forces, and functions of the universe. 

What, then, is the verdict of the philosopher? 
Accepting the regular scientific practice of assuming 
that the part is symbolic of the whole, that the relative 
is symbolic of the absolute, and that the visible is sym- 
bolic of the invisible, he concludes that typical human 
nature, typical human needs, and typical human activ- 
ities imply the existence of an Infinite Personality. To 
recapitulate, he concludes that typical human nature 
implies the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and 
omnipresent God; that typical human needs imply the 
existence of an Infinite Triune Being who assumes the 
role of a Father, of a Son, and of a comforting Spirit ; 
and that typical human experience implies the existence 


[39] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


of an Infinite Personality, creating, controlling, and 
crowning. He asserts that such conclusions are neces- 
sary complements of relative fact. Therefore, the ver- 
dict of Philosophy is that supernaturalism is indispens- 
able for a rational and reasonable interpretation of the 
forms, forces, and functions of the universe. Philosophy 
declares that God is an Infinite and Glorious Person- 
ality. 


Witness of Human Experience 


Concerning the witness of Experience, there is a 
three-fold testimony to review; namely, personal, sym- 
bolical, and clinical. 

Personal testimony: Clouds of witnesses bear testi- 
monials concerning their experience with and their faith 
in the Infinite God. From the beginning of the race 
until now, individuals have borne witness to the leader- 
ship of an Infinite Personality. Some testified by tongue, 
some by pen, some by deeds, and some by miracles. The 
ages are freighted with testimonials for the fact and 
function of deity. Myriads declare daily by lips their 
undying faith in the Christ as Saviour and Lord. Multi- 
tudes declare daily by life the transforming power of the 
Infinite Personality. And many declare daily by pen 
their zeal for supernaturalism and their love for its 
Christ. . 

Now, the thoughtful will not abruptly brush aside 
these testimonials for they come from the lips and the 
lives of men and women whose integrity cannot be 
challenged. | 

Symbolical testimony: Evidence in symbol declaring 
human faith in an Infinite Personality is abundant. 


[40] 


Gop A Procsss on A PERson 


Architecture sanely witnesses in multitudinous forms 
human faith in a majestic God. Literature seemly at- 
tests in myriads of rhymes a supernatural Christ. 
Painting silently proclaims in unnumbered productions 
human trust in a divine and Infinite Being. And Stat- 
uary surely declares in countless patterns the sover- 
eignty of Infinity in the hfe of mundane creatures. 
Moreover, the flower and the fruit bear undying testi- 
mony to a personality which transcends the powers of 
man. 

Climcal testumony: Harold Begbie’s ‘‘Twice-Born 
Men’’ discloses unique and indisputable evidence for. the 
fact and function of supernaturalism. His book, which 
is in reality a clinic in regeneration, offers many in- 
stances wherein men attest their belief in salvation from 
above. 

The first clinical evidence submitted is that of ‘‘The 
Puncher,’’ a vile wretch who came from a respectable 
family. As a lad, he had an ungovernable temper and 
was pronounced unmanageable. He began early to steal 
and to drink. He took an adolescent fling at wildness 
and daring. He entered the pugilistic profession and 
disclosed remarkable traits as a puncher. After defeat- 
ing the most renowned of the pugilistic world, he turned 
to horse racing. In this role, he defrauded and cheated, 
and finally went down in disgrace. 

In the meantime, his wife’s love grew cold toward him 
and she declared that she was done with the wretch. 
Turning from his domestic infelicity, he plunged more 
deeply into crime and slime. Perhaps few men in all 
history have become viler criminals than he. With 
murder in his heart and with a dagger in his pocket, he 


[41] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


invited his wife to go with him to a local music hall. 
Out of fear the invitation was accepted. While on the 
way, ‘‘The Puncher’’ was invited to enter the Salvation 
Hall by an old converted drunkard. He turned from 
him, struck across the road, and entered into a public- 
house. While there, a sense of shame seized him, a 
guilty conscience pricked him, and a depraved life con- 
demned him. Out of his penitence, conversion and 
superlative joy was born. 

Quoting from the text: 


‘*He says that it is impossible to describe his sensations. 
The past dropped clear away from him. An immense 
weight lifted from his brain. He felt light as air. He 
felt clean. He felt happy. All the ancient words used 
to symbolize the spiritual experience of instant and com- 
plete regeneration may be employed to describe his feel- 
ings, but they all fail to convey with satisfaction to him- 
self the immediate and delicious joy which ravished his 
consciousness. He cannot say what it was. All he knows 
is that there, at the penitent form, he was dismantled of 
old horror and clothed afresh in newness and joy.’’ 


The author indicates in his narrative that ‘‘The 
Puncher’’ was instrumental in saving some of the worst 
men in the underworld in which he moved. His activ- 
ities after his conversion clearly attested the genuine- 
ness of it. 

The second clinical illustration introduced by Mr. 
Begbie is that of ‘‘A Tight Handful.’’ According to a 
record of his life, he drank the dregs of degradation. He 
passed from virtue to vileness, and from continence to 
crime. He hated his wife, cowed her with a threat of 


[42] 


Gop A Procsss or A PERSON 


murder, bemoaned the existence of his baby, and cursed 
life in general. 
Mr. Begbie says: 


‘And now we reach a point in the story where mys- 
tery, unaccountable to the man himself, enters and hur- 
ries the conclusion. 

‘On his first journey that day, from the Bank to 
Shepherd’s Bush, this young guard heard a voice. He 
tells you quite calmly, and with a resolution of convic- 
tion nothing can shake, that as distinctly as ever he 
heard sound in his life, he heard that morning a voice, 
which said to him: ‘It is your fault, not God’s, that you 
cannot be saved; you won’t trust.’ 

‘*It was the suggestion, which psychologists perfectly 
understand, of surrender; the clear, emphatic injunction 
of Christ—the stressed idea expressed in so many forms 
—the absolute necessity for losing one’s life, laying down 
one’s life, losing one’s soul—the new birth, being born 
again—almost, one might say, the swe qua non of 
Christ’s revelation. 

‘‘To yield, to cease to struggle, to be passive, to be as 
clay in the hands of the potter—utterly to surrender the 
will to some vast power dimly comprehended and vaguely 
desired—this was the instant and poignant movement 
in the mind of the man following the sound of the voice. 

‘*He surrendered. 

“The miracle had happened. * * * 

‘‘Such an amazing revulsion, such a complete and 
total transformation of character, is an achievement 
possible only to religious influences. Hypnotism, as I 
know, can undoubtedly, after many weeks of operation, 
cure some men of their vices. Drugs are able in certain 
eases, after a long and difficult treatment, to remove the 
taste for aleohol. But it is only a religious force which, 
in the twinkling of an eye, can so alter the character of 
a man that he not only then and there escapes and stands 


[43] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


utterly free from tyrannical passions, but is filled full 
of great enthusiasm, desires to spend his whole life in 
working for righteousness, and feels as if he had fed on 
honey-dew and drunk the milk of Paradise. . 

‘“‘This is the wonder-side of conversion which no 
theory of psychology can explain. It is also the greatest 
force in religion. Theology has no proofs; religious ex- 
perience does not need them.’’ 


The author concludes that ‘‘A Tight Handful’’ was 
completely changed; that his whole life was filled with 
delightsome joy; and that his subsequent activities veri- 
fied the genuineness of his conversion. It was not a 
change of thinking simply, it was a change of nature and 
living. 

Mr. Begbie introduces numerous other clinical studies, 
all of which bear similar testimonies to the miracle of 
redemption. 

Dr. Howard A. Kelly, world-famous surgeon and 
scientist, submits other clinical evidence. The December 
issue, 1924, American Magazine, carries an article en- 
titled, ‘‘The Most Important Thing of My Life.’’ In 
this monograph Dr. Kelly answers the question, ‘‘Is it 
literally true that Christianity remakes men ?”’ 

After witnessing to his belief in the transforming 
power of the gospel, and after affirming his faith in a 
supernatural God, he submits two clinical studies, which 
he asserts demonstrate the miraculous nature of Chris- 
tian salvation. 

Wallace and MacLellan, immigrants to America, 
sought a livelihood as textile workers. They took to 
drinking. They went from bad to worse. They drank 
the dregs of degradation. Mrs. Bradford, Dr. Kelly’s 


[44] 


Gop A Procsss orn A PErRson 


sister, became interested in them. She sought earnestly 
to enlist them in the service of her Master. At length 
she succeeded in leading Wallace to accept Christ as 
Savior and Lord. The change in his life was complete. 
‘““Moday,’’ says Dr. Kelly, ‘‘ Wallace is a highly respected 
man. He owns his own happy home and has a fine son 
and daughter. He is an effective public speaker, a 
leader in his section—in short, a substantial, upright 
' Christian citizen.’’ Thus, a Transcendent Christ mirac- 
ulously transformed his life. 

Following Wallace’s conversion, he immediately set 
about to bring MacLellan, his old friend, to accept Christ 
as Savior. Years went by, and at last he succeeded in 
bringing him to accept the gospel as heaven’s provision 
for lost souls. ‘‘Old things passed away.’’ A griping, 
carping, and hating being was transformed into sun- 
shine and joy. He was truly freed from his chains. 

These clinical evidences submitted by Dr. Kelly repre- 
sent a universal and incontestable fact, namely; the re- 
ligion of the Lord Jesus Christ is actually and imme- 
diately transforming in its essence and function. The 
impartation of the divine light through the ministry of 
the Holy Spirit regenerates human nature, giving human 
beings new motives, new outlooks, and new programs. 
Concerning this, it should ever be remembered that 
Christianity is demonstrable not in a single act but in 
the laboratory of human experience. 


Witness of Revelation 


We have observed that Reason, Philosophy, and Ex- 
perience demand the existence of an Infinite Personality 
in order to give rational explanation to the things which 


[45] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


are. We come now to look at the voice of Revelation, 
and in turn discover its verdict. 

The witness of Revelation, as disclosed in the Bible, 
assumes on the one hand that the part is symbolic of the 
whole, and declares on the other hand that God is an 
Infinite Personality with omiscient, omnipotent, and 
omnipresent capacities. 

Bible evidence illustrating that the part is symbolic of 
the whole is manifold. For example, the hand disclosed 
at Belshazzar’s feast was a part which obviously implied 
the existence of a whole. 

Again, the environment upon the Mount created by 
the Transfiguration of Jesus typified the environment of 
Heaven. Thus, the part was symbolic of the whole. 

Again, the Apostle Paul declares the same principle 
when he says: 


‘‘Now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face. 
Now we know in part, then we shall know even also as 
we are known.’’ 


In these we see the hand implying the existence of a 
Supreme Being, the environment implying the existence 
of another world, and the language declaring the exist- 
ence of an eternity of absolute light. A supreme hand, a 
perfect environment, and an absolute light are all im- 
possible apart from an Infinite Personality. 

Revelation not only agrees with Philosophy in assum- 
ing that the part is symbolic of the whole, but it openly 
declares the existence and regnance of a Supreme Being. 


Genesis 1:1: ‘‘In the beginning God created the 
heaven and the earth.”’ 


[46] 


Gop A Proczss on A PERSON 


Psalms 2: ‘‘Why do the heathen rage, and the people 
imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set them- 
selves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the 
Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their 
bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He 
that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall 
have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them 
in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet 
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will 
declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art 
my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and 
I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and 
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou 
shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them 
in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now therefore, O 
ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve 
the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss 
the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, 
when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all 
they that put their trust in him.’’ 


Psalms 90:1-2: ‘‘Lord thou hast been our dwelling 
place in all generations. Before the mountains were 
brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and 
the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art 
God.’’ 


' 


John 3:11-17: ‘‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We 
speak that we do know. and testify that we have seen; 
and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you 
earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, 
if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath 
ascended up to heaven, but he that came down ‘from 
heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And 
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever be- 
lieveth in him should not perish but have eternal life. 
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 


[47] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his 
Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the 
world through him might be saved.’’ 


Hebrews 6:18-20: ‘‘For when God made promise to 
Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware 
by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, 
and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he 
had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men 
verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation 
is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing 
more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the 
immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible 
for God to le, we might have a strong consolation, who 
have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before 
us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both 
sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within 
the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even 
Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of 
Melchisedec.’’ 


Revelation 1:7-8: ‘‘Behold, he cometh with clouds; 
and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced 
him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of 
him. Hven so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
ginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and 
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’’ 


Revelation 22:18-19: ‘‘For I testify unto every man 
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If 
any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book: And if 
any man shall take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 
book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the 
things which are written in this book.’’ 


[48] 


Gop A Procrss or A PERson 


Now, if these scriptures do not declare the existence 
and regnance of a Supreme Being and avow the absolute 
nature and finality of the Scriptures, then the English 
language is meaningless. Revelation declares by symbol 
the existence of God Transcendent. It reveals an In- 
finite Personality creating forms, forces, and functions, 
and giving directions to the whole of them. Accord- 
ingly, Revelation grounds a rational explanation of the 
universe in an Infinite Personality. 

The reader is invited to recall that Reason, Philoso- 
phy, Experience, and Revelation agree as one in their 
assumptions and in their conclusions. They agree that 
the relative is symbolic of the absolute, and that a Being 
supernaturally creating, controlling, and crowning must 
exist. 

Let the atheists, the rationalists, and the materialists 
look well to facts before indicting the verdict of Reason, 
Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation concerning life. 
Reason, Philosophy, Experience, and Revelation all agree 
that back of order, designs, and plans there must be an 
orderer, designer, planner. They all agree that order, 
designs, and plans cannot find rational explanation in 
accidents, variations, or fortuitous change. They all 
further agree that a rational effect must pre-suppose a 
rational cause. Therefore, the verdict of the four is 
that God is not a process but a Person, and that He is not 
natural law but an Infinite Law-Giver. 


[49] 


CHAPTER III 


Import of Organic Evolution 


S already witnessed, the principles of evolution 

and naturalism are very closely related. The 
logic of the first produces the second and the functions 
of the second reciprocate the first. Evolution is the 
ereatest asset of present day naturalism, and naturalism 
is a regular feeder of evolution. 

The question of evolution is admittedly an attractive 
one. It has had a profound influence upon the educa- 
tional and social activities of this age. 

All evolutionists are practically agreed as to the gen- 
eral meaning of evolution, but in their application of 
the same they fall, not into one, but into two evolu- 
tionary schools; namely, Materialistic and Theistic— 
Organic, Atheistic, and Cosmic evolution really fall into 
the Materialistic category. The Materialistic school 
bases its system upon natural law. The Theistic school 
bases its system upon Infinite Life in natural law. The 
present study will deal especially with the Organic 
aspect of Materialistic evolution. The next chapter will 
seek a definition of Theistic evolution, and in turn apply 
the definition derived to supernaturalism. 

As an approach to the definition of Organic evolution, 
it is necessary to remember that it is not synonymous 
with development. If evolution were defined as develop- 
ment or progress surely all would subscribe to it. Evi- 
dence for development is everywhere apparent. Plants 


[50] 


Import oF Organic E:votuTIon 


develop from germination to maturity, animals from 
conception to full-grown creatures, human beings from 
fertilization of the ovum to the maturity of individuals, 
and society from simple culture to complex social ex- 
istences. Concrete evidence of social progress is abun- 
dant. The race in passing from absolutism to democracy, 
from the 3 R method to the modern methods of educa- 
tion, from the domestic system to the modern factory 
system, and from old rectangular church buildings to 
modern church plants, has most surely demonstrated 
development. No one need be dubious about asserting 
progress. 

Science and human experience justify the statement 
that there is development according to natural law. 
They further justify the statement that natural law is 
not left to the dominion of accident but is controlled by 
a supernatural being. 


Now, the crux of the theory of Organic evolution is » 


not development but it is transmutations. For it to be 
a reality, lower species must naturally transmute into 
higher ones. 

A careful study of life forms discloses a complete 
absence of data verifying the transmutation of species, 
and reveals veritable clouds of witnesses attesting 
changes and development within the species. Structural 
changes in organisms do not constitute new species; they 
simply demonstrate modifications within species. The 
modern draft and saddle horses, the modern beef and 
dairy cattle, the modern bacon and lard hogs, the modern 
wool and mutton sheep, and the modern egg and meat 
fowls all demonstrate species development. Moreover, 
the grapefruit, the Burbank potato, the Ponderosa 


[51] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRIstTiIan ? 


tomato, and the ever-bearing strawberry, demonstrate 
the same principle. All are prima facie evidence of de- 
velopment within the species. Such development is un- 
deniable. 

While one may say with almost dogmatic certitude 
that there is development within the species, one may, 
at the same time, say with equal certitude that transmu- 
tation of species is an ultra-scientific doctrine. It is not 
demonstrable. Notwithstanding the fact that Organic 
evolution is a challenging ideal, the wary now, as of old, 
know that all that glitters is not gold. 

Before proceeding further with this study, it is neces- 
sary to seek definitely the meaning of Organic evolution. 


Meaning of Evolution 


Herbert Spencer, ‘‘Principles of Biology,’’ says: 


‘‘Evolution is an integration of matter and concomi- 
tant dissipation of motion, during which the matter 
passes from relatively indefinite incoherent homogeneity 
to a relatively definite homogeneity; and during which 
the retained motion (energy) undergoes a parallel trans- 
formation.’’ | 


Le Conte, famous modern scientist, says: 


‘Evolution is continuous progressive change, accord- 
ing to certain laws, by means of resident forces.’’ 


K. D. Cope, noted evolutionist, says: 


‘‘The doctrine of evolution may be defined as the 
teaching which holds that creation has been and is 
accomplished by the energies which are intrinsic in evo- 
lutionary matter, without the interference of agencies 
that are external to it.’’ 


[52] 


Import oF Orcanic KvoLutTIon 
H. W. Conn, ‘‘Evolution of Today,’’ says: 


‘‘Hvolution, Organic evolution, and the theory of 
descent, are practically synonomous terms and each of 
these is used to indicate the theory that all species of 
animals and plants (including man) existing today have 
been derived from others living in the past, by direct 
descent, and they will themselves give rise in the future 
to other still different species. * * * The essential idea 
which underlies the whole theory is that species have 
had a natural rather than a supernatural origin.’’ 


Huxley, noted rationalist, says: 


‘‘The whole world living and not living is the result 
of the mutual attraction according to definite laws of the 
powers possessed by molecules of which the primitive 
nebulosity of the universe was composed.’’ 


Marion D. Shutter, ‘‘ Applied Evolution,’’ says: 


‘*Eivolution means that the earth, instead of being 
flung into space, a ready-made sphere from the hand of 
God, took its rise in nebulous mists and clouds, and by a 
process of whirling and condensing and cooling, through 
countless ages, became the globe of today. Evolution 
means that, whatever the ultimate origin of life, the 
plants and flowers and grasses and trees which clothe 
the earth were not made at once, as we behold them 
now ; but began in the simplest and fewest germs; and by 
gradual changes under varying conditions, attained the 
variety, luxuriance and beauty which wreathe the brow 
of the planet. It means that the members of the animal 
kingdom in all its departments, were not, each kind, 
called into being in a moment, and in fixed and definite 
and unvarying and unchanging species, but that the 
whole (animal) kingdom began countless ages ago in a 


[53 ] 


Can An Evouvutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


shapeless mass of jelly, and has developed from one to 
another to man.’’ 


Bergin and Davis, ‘‘Principles of Botany,’’ say: 


‘‘This doctrine of special creation gave way to the 
present belief in Organic evolution, or the theory of 
descent, chiefly through the work of Charles Darwin, 
whose famous book, ‘‘The Origin of the Species,’’ ap- 
peared in 1859. The theories of Organic evolution hold 
that all existing species of animals and plants have been 
derived, or evolved, through the geological ages from the 
simplest forms of life in the beginning.’’ 


The University Encyclopedia says: 


‘‘The evolution theory in its broadest aspect under- 
takes to explain the origin of the universe, of all created 
things, material and immaterial. * * * Evolution is a 
law the operation of which is traceable throughout every 
department of nature. * * * The origin of all mammals 
from one common parent form upward to man is an 
established fact. Man’s evolution can be traced upward 
from a fish in 12 steps or stages.”’ 


The New International Encyclopedia says: 


‘The evolution theory, in its broadest aspect, under- 
takes to explain the origin of the universe, of all created 
things material and immaterial; and more especially the 
origin of our own planet, together with the plants and 
animals living and extinct, including man, his physical 
and mental nature. * * * Life appears to have been a 
necessary and inevitable result of Inorganie or Cosmic 
evolution. It came into being on our planet in the most 
natural way as soon as the temperature of the originally 
superheated planetary mass became sufficiently lowered, 
and the gaseous matter had been condensed into a uni- 
versal sea. It arose by the action of physico-chemical 
laws, through what we call spontaneous generation, the 


[54] 


Import oF Organic E\voLUTION 


materials for the formation of the first bit of living 
protoplasm being ready at hand.’’ 


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: 


‘‘Evolution, therefore, must be viewed in science purely 
and strictly as a process of orderly change in the form 
of things. As such it assumes the existence of substance 
or substances and of a force or forces working its suc- 
cessive transformation.’’ 


According to Darwin, Organic evolution is an ideal 
which supposedly describes the creation and the life 
processes of species within animal and vegetable king- 
doms. As previously seen, this ideal, in order to stand 
the test of logic, has been made to embrace the larger 
concept of Cosmic evolution. Science has thus come to 
view and to treat evolution from this larger aspect as 
well as from the Organic one. 

According to the larger concept, evolution is used to 
describe the processes of, not simply living phenomena, 
but all of the forms, forces, and functions of the uni- 
verse involving organic and systemic relationships. In 
short, it is the universe in an unrolling or, better, un- 
folding process. Accordingly, such evolution describes 
the processes of creation and reproduction in both the 
animate and inanimate forms of the universe. It de- 
lineates the processes of change from nebulous mists to 
the universe, or from protoplasm to man. It is impor- 
tant to remember that these changes are never externally 
induced but are ever internally wrought out. 

Organic evolution may be defined as nature unrolling 
as a scroll, or as a natural process of unfolding from 
within to without, never from without to within. Thus, 


[55] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


it is not change, it is natural change; it is not develop- 
ment, it is natural development; it is not progress, it is 
natural progress. Stated completely in positive terms, 
Organic evolution is natural change, natural develop- 
ment, and natural progress. That is, 7t 1s something on 
the inside working itself out, never something on the 
outside working itself in. With reference to man, it is 
an unfolding animal stream manifesting itself in various 
animal forms. Accordingly, man never came from the 
monkey, but from the same animal stream whence the 
monkey came. For a graphical illustration, see the next 


page. 


Method of Evolution 


Now, in the light of the meaning just adduced, the 
method of Organic evolution appears. Jt 1s natural 
selection. That is, it 1s nature selecting. According to the 
guidance of nature, Organic evolution may be described 
(1) as a natural process, (2) as an upward process, (3) 
as a process of and by itself, (4) as an inevitable process, 
or (5) as a blind process. It is, therefore, energy resi- 
dent in matter, working itself out and manifesting it- 
self in organic forms. As a process, it is always evolu- 
tionary, never involutionary. 


To understand the major significance of Organic evo- 
lution, it is necessary to image a stream of animality in 
which nature blindly selects its forms from the lower to 
the higher and gradually evolves an animal life destined 
to culminate in a complex human animal. After ages 
and ages of chance variation and struggle, behold man, 
the king of beasts, was born! 


[56] 


SYMPODIAL CURVE 


Graphical illustration of Orthogenetic 
Organic evolution 


KINGDOM OF PERFECTION 
e 






















Worship <-- 
Codes <--- 
Standards @-- Human 
King. 
Ideals <— 
Ideas ae m= 
Man—King of Beasts <-~------------= w= 
Missing Link—Pithecanthropi Race <-- 
Ape—Tailless Monkey <----<{) 
Animal 
>>: 
Monkey King. 
Amoeba, Fish, Mud Turtle, etc. 
Survival of the Fittest. <- 
Struggle 
Variation Veg. 
> King. 


Spon. Generation <----() 


LIFE SOURCE— ENERGY AND MATTER 


‘Transmutations=Natural changes from within to without, never 
from without to within, from lower to higher forms, or from proto- 
plasm to man. 











The learning process is the medium for the attainment of the 
Kingdom of Perfection. Accordingly, organic evolution is logically a 
dagger thrust at Orthodox Christianity. 


Can An Evouvutionist Bs A CHRrIstTIAN? 


Message of Evolution 


What is the message of Organic evolution? What is 
its bearing upon human activities? How does it influ- 
ence human philosophy? A careful study of it discloses 
a five-fold bearing upon human life. Organic evolution 
vitally influences human philosophy and markedly colors 
human interpretation of biological, social, educational, 
political, and religious data. 


Biological Message 


The biological import of Organic evolution is revealed 
in natural selection and its three subordinate functions; 
namely, spontaneous generation, variation, and strug- 
gle. 

Natural selection is the all-important factor of Organic 
evolution. It is nature selecting through law. Accord- 
ingly, it generates, varies, and perpetuates. 

Early evolutionary scientists logically and coura- 
geously offered spontaneous generation as a possible ex- 
planation of the origin of the first animate forms. They 
suggested that such sudden generation of life could be 
explained by chemicals accidentally combining so as to 
spontaneously produce life. Such accidental generation 
suggests that chance is the selective principle in the 
universe’s processes. Accordingly, fate becomes the 
master of life. 

Through the epoch-making labours of Pasteur and 
others, spontaneous generation has been discredited. 
Many evolutionary scientists to-day substitute ‘‘bio- 
senesis,’ that is, life from preceding life, for spontaneous 
generation. Notwithstanding this fact, spontaneous 
generation is logically a necessary part of Organic evo- 


[58] 


Import oF Orcanic EvoLutTion 


lution. If an Infinite Personality is outlawed by such 
evolution, chance must rule. Accordingly, the life 
obtaining in the universe must have been accidentally 
and spontaneously generated. 

Concerning animate life, Organic evolution logically 
and actually teaches that the life form or forms spon- 
taneously appearing in nature’s processes, gradually 
evolved from the simple to the complex, and that out of 
the single, or several living cells thus appearing, the 
various kingdoms, orders, and species have been evolved. 

Now, the operating law which effected these various 
life forms is variation. Variation is the insurgent aspect 
of the law of natural selection. Through the medium of 
mutations, it is supposed to have differentiated organic 
life, and to have caused all progress. Thus, without its 
operation, all life would be stilted and grooved. 

Furthermore, variation, as nature’s insurgent law, 
performs the function of an active blind guide. Accord- 
ing to scientific inference, variation blindly succeeded, 
after aeons and aeons of time, in evolving and delivering 
the human race out of the matrix of animality. Through 
like begetting like until it doesn’t, all life forms have 
been evolved and human animals have increasingly 
tamed and mastered their unknown and unconquered en- 
vironments. 

The survival of the fittest represents the crowning 
achievement of nature’s struggle. That is, it represents 
those forms, naturally selected, with the greatest power 
of adaptation or co-adaptation. Natural’ selection, 
through blind purpose and struggle, is the law of laws in 
evolution. Generation, variation, elimination, and per- 
petuation are all aspects of the functions of this ruling 


[59] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


principle in the universe’s processes. Through it, nature 
blindly selects its superior forms and forces. Accord- 
ingly, natural selection weeds out the unfit, life forms 
lacking strength, adaptation, and cunning, by means of 
struggle, famine, disease, mal-adjustment, and death. It 
perpetuates the fit, life forms having strength, adapta- 
tion, and cunning, by killing off the weaker, by prevent- 
ing reproductions of inferior types, and by encouraging 
the reproduction of the superior types. With refer- 
ence to man, it weeds out the hapless and the helpless, 
and selects the intelligent and the strong. 

Thus, the survival of the fittest is the end-result of the 
whole struggle of nature’s processes. Organic evolution, 
under the guidance of the law of natural selection, im- 
plies without the shadow of a doubt the super-man 
theory of Trietschke, who maintains that the best of all 
the people are the Germans, and the best of all the Ger- 
mans are the Prussians. The super-man is the inevitable 
result of such a natural selective process. 

To sum up, the biological import of Organic evolution 
is three-fold: First, it starts life without conscious effort. 
Second, it makes all progress and differentiations in life. 
the end-result of variations. And third, it achieves, 
through mutations and eliminations, a super-man type 
of manhood. If the journey of man is actually up and 
out, it would follow that all inferior types would ulti- 
mately be weeded out. 


Social Message 


The social import of Organic evolution becomes at once 
apparent when one looks at the biological principles 
just adduced. According to the above principles, social 


[60] 


Import oF OrGANIC EvVoLUTION 


disorders and social strata are inevitable. The reasons 
for these are inherent in the Organic evolutionary pro- 
cess. 

In the first place, social disorders would inevitably 
spring from the nature of the conditions under which it 
is claimed evolving human beings have experience. 
Organic evolution logically teaches that man emerged 
from the sub-human world, without human experience; 
and that he entered the realm of humanity with brain 
capacity for thinking but without any accumulation of 
knowledge. Now, if the first man stood at the gateway 
of humanity without human experience, he was obviously 
without any standards by which to measure his conduct. 
Without tested experiences to fall back upon, he would 
manifestly have to develop his tabooes and sanctions. 

Organic evolutionists actually teach that the early 
life of the race was hard and arduous, and that through 
the medium of its conflicts with harsh environments, it 
slowly evolved its social standards and institutionalized 
its life. It is explained that while man was in the proc- 
ess of evolving his social and institutional standards, he 
was forced to make countless adjustments. At one time 
he was resisting invading clansmen, at other times he was 
resisting harsh environments, and still at other times he 
was fighting for food supplies. It is asserted that these 
conflicts were inevitable because primitive people had to 
live off of an untamed and uncontrolled nature. When 
drought or calamity visited regions, neighboring clans- 
men would fight to obtain as much of the meager food 
supply as possible. It thus happened that the weaker 
fell before the stronger; hence, the fittest survived. 

Wars thus appear as inevitable adjustments of man- 


[61] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


kind to adverse conditions. Wars, famine, disease, sin, 
and death come out of man’s attempt to conquer nature, 
and out of the misdirection of his native impulses. In 
the all-but-blina gropings of the race to find its way out, 
war, murder, vice, crime, oppression, and repression 
appear as logical sequences of the learning process. If 
man’s original pathway was unillumined by intellectual 
and spiritual standards, then the institutions of feudal- 
ism, despotism, and slavery are but natural results of the 
social life of the race. Therefore, the race’s mistakes are 
not due to innate depravity but to the absence of intel- 
lectual controls. All sufferings, anxieties, and social 
disorders are thus attributable to ignorance, not to 
wrong nature or to sin. 

In the second place, social strata are inevitable. As 
previously indicated, the operation of the law of natural 
selection would logically produce super-types of men; 
hence, classes would obtain. The number of classes is 
not implied, but classes are implied. Moreover, they are 
manifestly blood classes. The evolution of the super- 
man is conditioned upon variation ard death, death by 
means of war, famine, disease, and sin. ‘‘Life lives upon 
death.’’ The intellectually élite thus live at the expense 
of the intellectually inferior. History is replete with 
evidence showing wars, famine, disease, sin, and death to 
be class makers. 

In this connection, it is important to remember that 
the biological basis for super-men becomes at once the 
genetic condition for an intellectual aristocracy. The 
logic of Organic evolution is that the fittest physically 
should become the fittest mentally. The social message 
of this is, the fittest intellectually should guide the des- 


[62] 


Import oF OrGAnic KivoLutTIon 


tinies of the race. Now, this social phase discloses an 
important trend in modern education. 


Educational Message 


The educational import of Organic evolution is re- 
vealed in the influence of evolutionary principles upon 
the aims, methods, and materials of education. 

Orgame evolution vitally influences the aims of educa- 
tion. According to patent implications, the aims of edu- 
cation should be to evolve tested and humanly workable 
standards for social control, and to develop an élite class 
for social leadership. With reference to the first, work- 
able standards for social control are essential requisites 
for shaping human conduct. The character of ideals 
thus becomes all-important. With reference to the 
second, intelligence must be discovered and trained to 
lead. Obviously, the mentally élite alone qualify to 
survey existing social conditions, to select the socially 
efficient ideals, and to formulate them into a better system 
of socialized education. Now, if natural selection creates 
an intellectual aristocracy, and if the aim of education 
should be in harmony with the law of nature which pro-. 
duces it, then it would follow that the aim of education 
should be to train, on the one hand, intellectual aristo- 
erats for social guidance, and to perpetuate, on the other 
hand, a large group of willing subordinates. The sov- 
ereign and the subject are clearly discernible in this 
aim. 

Orgamc evolution vitally affects the method of educa- 
tion. According to biological principles, the method of 
learning is ‘‘trial and error.’’ So far as the biological 
science is concerned, all the knowledge of all the ages is 


[63] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHRistTIaAn? 


thus achieved. Although much knowledge has un- 
doubtedly been lost during the untoward experiences of 
the race, yet the best has apparently persisted in human 
custom and folkways. The trial and error method is 
simply a testing one. It is natural pragmatism. Ac- 
cordingly, if, on the one hand, group experience appears 
to work for its well-being, the experience is idealized 
and incorporated into group customs. If, on the other 
hand, group experience appears to work for its undoing, 
the experience is tabooed and handed down as a negative 
sanction. Hence, through the process of appraising its 
experience and eliminating the unsocial, the race has 
gradually risen in the scale of civilization. 

It happens, however, that groups idealize experiences 
whose values are but passing ones. These being incor- 
porated into group custom are handed down from gener- 
ation to generation. Such erroneous customs become 
social ballast to progress. Reason at once suggests that 
such ballast should be removed. To do this, the aceumu- 
lated customs of the race must be brought under the 
searchlight of inductive science. Herein is revealed the 
basis for the question mark in modern education. This 
pragmatic attitude may be summed up in the statement, 
‘“Put a question mark after the past.’’ From these facts, 
it is obvious that Organic evolution directly influences 
the methods of educational procedure. 

Organic evolution vitally influences educational con- 
tent. Under the impact of the question mark, the cur- 
riculum tends to be abridged in some instances and en- 
larged in others. On the one hand, there is a tendency 
to discredit the classics, to divorce idealism from text 
books and classroom, and to remove supernaturalism 


[64] 


Import oF OrGanic Evolution 


from the learning process. On the other hand, there is a 
positive tendency to encourage ‘‘bread and butter’’ sub- 
jects in the curriculum, to promote technical training, 
and to foster naturalism in education. Under the ideal 
of naturalism, all ideas, ideals, standards, and beliefs 
are humanly evolved. None are given by divine fiat. 
Hence, a premium is put upon human nature and human 
experience. Accordingly, the materials for the class 
room should be of and for man. All others should be 
excluded. 

A summary of the educational message of Organic 
evolution shows that the aims, methods, and materials 
of education are selfward; that race succor is humanly 
achieved ; and that reason is the rescuer of man. Such a 
selfward program would manifestly affect every phase 
of human activity. Its influence upon politics is espe- 
cially apparent. 


Political M essage 


The political import of Organic evolution is three- 
fold: It encourages absolutism, repression, and oppres- 
sion. 

As previously indicated, Organic evolution implies 
the development of the super-man. Now, this ideal 
applied to government simply means that the super-man 
should rule. Perhaps no difficulty would be entailed in 
this, if only such leadership already existed and was 
actually in control of governments. But facts show that 
all rulers to date have been, and are, individuals with 
limitations common to the masses of mankind. The 
realization of super-man rulership is obviously yet to be. 


[65] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHristIAn ? 


The following question naturally obtrudes itself. How 
can such governmental leadership obtain ? 

An answer to this question is revealed in natural selec- 
tion. According to it, the fit survive by means of nat- 
ural powers, strength, cunning, and adaptation, and by 
the aid of external actualities, war, famine, disease, and 
death. Thus, natural selection operating in nature 
normally selects the most adaptable and forcefully elim- 
inates the unfit. But man is a natural force! Now, if 
the fit should obtain, the unfit should be eliminated; if 
the unfit should be eliminated, he who can ought; and 
if he who can ought, then the end justifies the means 
and might becomes right. Therefore, it inescapably 
follows that if ‘‘might is right’’ a world empire and a 
world prince should obtain. Furthermore, if the ‘‘end 
justifies the means,’’ then war, murder, vice, and erime 
may become the choicest virtues, providing they elim- 
inate the weak and advance the fortunes of the fittest. 

A world empire would involve the subordination of all 
phases of human activities to the will of its prince. 
Despotism, whether enlightened or callous, would tend to 
fetter individual initiative, and to repress democratic 
expression. Subserviency and repression would become 
the laws of the realm. But repression would manifestly 
involve militarism. With man insurgent by nature, no 
prince could maintain a world empire without mailed 
force. Therefore, force would consequently be idealized. 
Militarism and materialism, twin sons of death, would 
array themselves in gorgeous splendor and vaunt them- 
selves of much glory. Under the influence of force, 
heart values would be scoffed at, love would become sheer 
sentimentalism, and wedlock would become mere animal 


[66] 


Import oF Organic KivoLuTIon 


attachment for the purposes of satisfying sex impulses 
and for the perpetuation of the species. Individuals 
would exist for the state, and not the state for indi- 
viduals. A conquering prince would thus require a 
nation in arms, and a nation in arms would mean a 
repressed constituency. 

A world empire and a world prince involves oppres- 
sion. Conquest is the right arm of imperial expansion. 
Intermarriage and diplomacy function in dynastic ex- 
pansion, but they are surely secondary to war. The 
world prince, being a thorough-going opportunist, and 
being unfettered by moral scruples, would freely use the 
two methods of oppression, namely; diplomacy and war. 

According to Organic evolution, both are legitimate 
weapons of oppression. Diplomacy, tricks, intrigues, 
bribery, cajolery, etc., are rightful tools to promote the 
expansion of state. Moreover, infidelity, if previous 
treaties tend to hamper the expansion of the state, be- 
comes the chief of verities. Under the operations of 
such a principle, treaties become ‘‘scraps of paper,’’ 
and international law becomes nil by the will of the 
sovereign. Thus, by lies, intrigues, and infidelity, the 
prince oppresses and enslaves nations and peoples. 

When diplomacy fails to secure the desired expansion, 
the prince has recourse to war, the chief weapon of 
oppression. By overpowering, crushing, and enslaving, 
he adds more and more to his domain. An intriguing, 
warring, and enslaving prince lives consistently with 
the ideal which actuates him. 

There is a natural tendency for individuals who think 
themselves to be super-men to become laws unto them- 
selves. Herein is where great trouble lies. There is no 


[67] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A Curistran? 


limit to the number of people who think themselves to 
be super-men, and who feel that social and material re- 
demption is wrapped up in their personalities. With 
the regnance of such ideals, it is no wonder our day 
witnesses professed solvents for all human ills in modern 
socialism, bolshevism, syndicalism, mhilism, and ration- 


alism. The promoters of all these believe themselves to- 


be the hope of the world. Each of these groups receive 
basic ideals from Organic evolution. 

It is significant in this connection to remember the 
functions of ideals. They not only shape the character 
of activity but they motivate action. The ideal, Organic 
evolution, along with all others, wherever and whenever 
accepted, tend to find expression. Such a tendency ob- 
viously enlists many school rooms in translating evolu- 
tionary ideals into acts. Many educational leaders 
obviously pattern classroom procedure after evolution- 
ary implications and suggestions. 

The political message of Organic evolution is far- 


reaching and tragic. Under its logic might becomes 


right, vice becomes virtue, lies become leaven, cajolery 
becomes joy, murder becomes manna, and bestiality be- 
comes business. Oppression, repression, and suppression 
become honored hand-maidens of personal power. 
According to Organic evolution, all governments are 
products of man’s experiences as he passed from pure 
animality toward pure rationality. In other words, 
vovernments are institutionalized customs evolved in the 
second stage of the animal series; namely, the custom 
stage. It is declared, however that man passed out of 
the stage of instincts before entering the custom stage, 
and that before governments are truly perfected, he 


[68 ] 


Import oF OrGanic EvoLutTion 


must also pass out of the custom stage and enter the 
stage of reason. Now, the study of governmental sanc- 
tions and tabooes, supposedly induced by Organic evolu- 
tion, compels a study of religion which undergirds all 
morality. 


Religious Message 

The import of Organic evolution upon religion is, 
broadly speaking, two-fold: It champions naturalism, 
and attempts to discredit supernaturalism. 

Naturalism is inescapable in Organic evolution. A 
reference to the biological discussion recalls the sugges- 
tion that man emerged from the lower animal world 
without experience, and that he entered upon his human 
journey without any standards, religious or otherwise, 
by which to measure his conduct. He was, upon his 
emergence, simply an animal whose brain development 
qualified him to think. He was not religious; he had 
to become religious strictly through human experience. 
All of his religious idealism had to be developed. Thus, 
when he began to develop his religious concepts he began 
his religious ascent. It follows, then, that such religion 
as man possesses is natural and evolutionary. 

Here is where Organic evolutionists draw a line 
against supernaturalism. If man has been climbing all 
the time, then there has been no fall. From this, many 
important conclusions may be drawn: If man never fell, 
then there is no occasion for regeneration from above; 
if no need for regeneration from above, then there is no 
need for a God-man to redeem from sin; if no need for a 
God-man, then there is no need for the Cross; if no need 
for the Cross, then there is no need for the Christ; and 


[69] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


finally, if no need for the Christ, then there is no occa- 
sion for a religion which offers blood redemption for 
human succor. Accordingly, naturalism stands exalted, 
and supernaturalism stands indicted before the court of 
logic. 

It is significant to note that Organic evolution, in 
banning supernaturalism, and in championing evolution 
rationalizes religion. Religion thus becomes evolved 
ethics. Right is what is socially approved, and wrong is 
what is socially tabooed. All standards of right and 
wrong become simply human standards. Hence, ethics 
by divine fiat is frowned upon. Accordingly, then, the 
moral judgment of the race is the only standard of right 
and wrong that man can know. By reason, selection 
and appraisal, man gradually weeds out his unethical 
standards, and is thus able to ‘‘lift himself by his own 
bootstraps.’’ Such a gospel of ethics is distinctly a 
human gospel. 

As to supernaturalism, Organic evolution reduces God 
Jehovah from the state of a creator to the plane of a 
creature, from the state of a sovereign to the plane of a 
subject, from the state of a person to the plane of a 
process, from the state of omnipotence to the plane of 
impotence, from the state of omniscience to the plane of 
ignorance, and from the state of omnipresence to the 
plane of cruelty and neglect. Accordingly, God is im- 
personal; He is simply evolution. 

A survey of the above principles concerning evolution 
and religion impels the following conclusions: 

In the first place, Organic evolution makes the Chris- 
tian religion to be a socially evaluating attitude toward 
the universe, declares it to be ethical in essence, and out- 


[70] 


Import oF OrGAanic E\voLutTIon 


laws an energizing role for a Divine and Transcendent 
Life. | 

In the second place, Organic evolution commits Je- 
hovah God to such a program of ruthlessness that true 
reason and justice revolt at it. 

In the third place, the social implication of Organic 
evolution, which divides society into sovereign and sub- 
ject classes, is not in harmony with the spirit end mes- 
sage of Christianity. 

In.the fourth place, the educational implications of 
Organic evolution are so subversive of the aims and 
ethics of Jesus, and so suggestive of class distinctions and 
hatred, that under its impact, class strifes and destructive 
wars would increasingly mark the footsteps of the race. 

In the fifth place, Organic evolution, in destroying 
initiative, democracy, liberty, and autonomy, would de- 
stroy the moral and ethical equilibrium of the race. 

In the sixth place, the principles of Organic evolution 
very flagrantly violate the spirit, essence, and nature of 
Christianity. In substituting naturalism for supernat- 
uralism, super-physical for miracles, mental illumina- 
tions for revelations, imagination for inspiration, works 
for grace, ethics for blood, opportunism for convictions, 
convenience for loyalty, and lastly, man for God, it sub- 
verts all that constitutes the life and essence of Chris- 
tianity. 

In the seventh place, in ignoring the inrolling or in- 
volutionary processes of life, Organic evolution outrages 
the claims of logic and limits the frontiers of truth to 
the borders of things material. 


[71] 


CHAPTER IV 


Defects of Theistic Evolution 


N the present study, the author refrains from stating 
the doctrinal elements of Theistic evolution. The 
reason for this attitude is two-fold: 

First, it is occasioned by the absence of any approved 
Theistic evolutionary creed. As a rule, Theistic evolu- 
tionists have opposed credal statements and as a con- 
sequence they have been tardy in conventionalizing their 
beliefs. It is true that different individuals have ex- 
pounded Theistic tenets, but there appears to be no real 
agreement among them. Consequently, for the author 
to attempt to say what they believe would be a presump- 
tion. Silence as to Theistic tenets is obviously the only 
fair course of procedure. 

Second, it is occasioned by the author’s purpose. His 
aim in this study is not to elaborate the claims of Theis- 
tic evolution, but to define it, and in turn apply the logic 
of the definition to the claims of supernaturalism. 
Readers may question his definition but not rightfully 
his right to choose this line of procedure. 

As a preparation for the present treatise, the above 
study of Organic evolution has just been made. The 
author assumed that a knowledge of the undergirding 
principles of Organic evolution is indispensable to the 
understanding of the principles of Theistic evolution. 
Space will not permit a resurvey of the principles ad- 
vanced above, but a restatement of the definition dis- 


[72] 


Derscts oF THeristic KivoLUTION 


closed will logically serve as an approach to the present 
study. 

The reader will recall that the ideal, Organic evolu- 
tion, is supposed to describe life and all of its forms in a 
process of natural unfolding; that is, it is supposed to 
describe an inner dynamic, actively functioning and 
blindly guiding nature’s processes. It is, thus, some- 
thing on the inside working itself out; never something 
on the outside working itself in. Accordingly, all of the 
living forms of the universe are absolutely end-results 
of the operation of the resident forces of nature. Or- 
ganic evolution, as previously seen, is simply natural 
change, natural development, and natural progress. To 
further elaborate, it is a natural process, an upward pro- 
cess, a process of and by itself, an inevitable process, or 
a blind process. 

Now, the immediate bearing of such an ideal upon 
worship is only too obvious. In the light of it, all 
religion 1s natural and evolutionary. Moreover, its 
immediate bearing upon Christianity is equally obvious. 
It, too, 1s natural and evolutionary. | 


Meaning 
Marion D. Shutter, ‘‘ Applied Evolution,’’ says: 


‘“‘The God. of evolution is inside of nature and not 
outside of it. And when we consider that man himself 
is a part of nature, and the best part of it, we must find 
God also in him, pre-eminently in him.”’ 


In the light of this definition God is simply immanent 
in nature; that is, He is completely identified with 
nature’s processes. If God is not transcendent to but 


[73] 


Can An Evouuttionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


is completely identified with nature’s processes, then 
there is no escape from the conclusion that He works and 
selects only as nature works and selects. 

Some one might say, ‘‘Oh, no, I do not believe that 
God completely identifies Himself with nature’s pro- 
cesses. I believe that God controls nature’s law.’’ Such 
a position surrenders the whole argument. To illustrate, - 
if God is not completely identified with nature’s pro- 
cesses but controls natural law in its functions, then He 
is superior to nature. If superior to it, then all of His 
strength is not required for its control. Therefore, the 
inevitable conclusion is, God is a transcendent being. 

Now, if natural processes are under the control of the 
Infinite God, why limit Him and His activities to the 
functions of natural law? If natural law yields to 
Infinite Life, why not magnify personality rather than 
processes? Why not herald the majesty of Christ and 
the absolute beauty of His labours, rather than ‘‘the 
majesty of law and the absolute beauty of order ?’’ 

Another might say, ‘‘Oh, no, I do not believe in any 
mechanistic theory of evolution. But I believe that 
God evolved all things through natural processes; I be- 
lieve the human animal is a product of Organic evolu- 
tion, and that, upon the emergence of man from the 
animal stream, God ‘‘breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life and man became a living soul.’’ 

Now, the difficulty with the process just described is, 
it is not an evolutionary one. Evolution in the strictest 
sense involves only one factor; namely, nature. It is 
essentially a closed system. The process described above 
admits the functions of two factors; namely, natural 
law and Infinite Life. In it, the closed system of nat- 


[74] 


Derscts oF THetstic EvoLuTIon 


ural determinism is destroyed by injecting an extrinsic 
force or agent. All should remember that the moment 
God enters into natural processes, His acts, being invo- 
lutionary, destroy evolution. 

It has been observed that both of the above Theistic 
evolutionists contend for the transcendency of God and, 
at the same time, limit His regular activities to natural 
law. Science to date offers no grounds for forging such 
chains for Him. All will agree that an Infinite God 
would not create chains for Himself. To limit God, who, 
according to the above admissions, is superior to natural 
law, to the processes of nature means that men forge 
chains for Him. 

Why limit God to natural processes? The answer is, 
He must be limited to nature if Organic evolution is true. 
The evolutionary ideal is exclusive. All past, present, 
and future existences and all purposes, plans, and per- 
sonalities must find explanation in the selective functions 
of natural law. Accordingly, evolution must account 
for Jesus Christ. Concerning this, Shutter further 
Says: 


‘Granted the greatness and goodness of Jesus, how 
do you account for Him? What is the relation of Him 
to this theory of evolution? Do you mean to include 
Him and His work in the general scheme? Can it be 
done? And the answer is: Yes, if evolution fails at one 
point, it fails utterly. We have then a case of that 
special intervention by a non-resident deity, which we 
have repeatedly repudiated. Evolution must include 
Jesus, or we must abandon the theory. There is no 
break or flaw or chasm. The process is one, from fire 
mist to soul; from the soul to its highest expression. 


[75] 


Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


Jesus is as much the product of the laws and forces in 
nature and in society as Shakespeare or Napoleon.”’ 


The relationship existing between Organic and Theis- 
tic evolution appears in the definition of the latter. The 
author believes that Theistic evolution is widely mis- 
understood. The reason for this belief is revealed in the 
fact that many professedly Theistic evolutionists try to 
make a place for involution in evolution, when actually, 
as Shutter shows, evolution will not permit such a role. 
It is important to remember that if any external power 
or agent enters into and influences the life of the uni- 
verse or any individual, such an influence destroys evolu- 
tion. With this in mind, a definition of Theistic evolu- 
tion may be advanced. 

Theistic evolution 1s no more and no less Shun Organic 
evolution with God read into the process. 

If Theistic evolution is but Organic evolution with 
God read into the process, then to all intents and pur- 
poses it may be described as a natural process, an up- 
ward process, a process of and by itself, an inevitable 
process, or a blind process with God in each of these 
aspects of activity. Thus, it appears that process, and 
not personality, is determinative; that the author of 
order shuts Himself up to and makes Himself helpless 
in the order which He made; that the maker of the 
natural process ties His own hands with the process 
which He made; that the maker of natural law sur- 
renders Himself to the function of the law which He has 
made; that the sovereign volitionally becomes a subject ; 
and that the vessel regularly controls the potter. 

Accordingly, the God of Theistic evolution may be 


[76] 


—— 


Derscts oF TxHristic EvotutTion 


said to be like the man who is reputed to have made a 
barrel, shut himself up in it, and had it dropped in the 
Niagara above the Falls. Thus, at his own will and 
direction, he made himself helpless in the process of the 
flowing stream. The man obviously fastened his own 
leashes when he committed himself to the blind forces 
of nature’s stream. The analogy between this unfortu- 
nate man and the God of Theistic evolution is quite 
complete. According to Theistic evolution, God created 
energy and matter, established law, initiated the natural 
process, gave direction and limits to nature’s functions, 
and, in turn, shut Himself up to and made Himself help- 
less in the process which He made. Thus, God’s method 
of procedure is identical with the natural process of 
Organic evolution. It obviously follows that God uses 
only the same laws, evolves only the same forms, and 
selects only the same way that Organic evolution uses, 
evolves, and selects. 

All out-and-out Theistic evolutionists must admit these 
principles. To fail to admit them is to destroy their 
premise. To admit the Transcendency of God is to 
admit the involutionary claims of orthodox Christians. 
Evolution ceases to be evolution the moment that God 
wills a change, because such activity is an external inter-. 
ference with internal processes. Evolution to be evolu- 
tion must be natural change, wrought by the operation 
of energy and law resident in nature. Such a process 
is admittedly a blind selective process. The law of 
‘“‘chance’’ thus becomes the law of life. Accordingly, 
Jehovah God gradually creates the universe with all its 
forms; aimlessly yields Himself to its immutable laws; 


[77] 


Can An Ewvoxuutionist Be A CHRIstTIAN ? 


and blindly guides in the evolution of all existences and 
co-existences. 

‘‘Oh, Consistency, thou art a jewel!’’ For Theistic 
evolutionists to assume, on the one hand, any role for an 
Infinite Personality in nature’s processes is to deny evo- 
lution. For them to assume, on the other hand, any role 
for ‘‘chance’’ selection in nature’s processes is to de- 
throne God. According to the last assumption, God 
ceases to be. Religiously speaking, the logic of Theistic 
evolution leads inevitably to agnosticism. 

The difference between Organic and Theistic evolution 
emerges here. The difference 1s not one of method but 
one of motie. The Organic process ts logically aimless. 
The Theistic process 1s logically both aimless and plan- 
ful, aumless in method and planful in motive. 


Method 


In the light of the definition advanced above, the real 
essence of Theistic evolution appears here. While assign- 
ing to Jehovah God Infinite power, purpose, and under- 
standing, 1¢ makes Him work helplessly, aimlessly, and 
blindly. God, infinite in power, is made to play the role 
of a pigmy. God, infinite in purpose, is made to econ- 
duct Himself aimlessly. God, infinite in understanding, 
is made to perform the role of an ignoramus. Thus, it 
is seen that His method ensnares His motive, and His 
performance fetters His personality. In short, His 
method of procedure fetters Him. 

With reference to this method, it is interesting to ob- 
serve the position of J. Arthur Thomson concerning it. 
Interest in his contentions is justified by virtue of his 


[78] 


Derects oF THeristic HvotutTicn 


unquestioned position in the scientific world. In his 
recent book, ‘‘Concerning Evolution,’’ he says: 


‘We know that some variations arise from what might 
be called a shuffling of the hereditary cards contained in 
the chromosomes of the germ-cells, and there ‘s in this 
a certain fortwtousness. It appears to be by a chance 
distribution that some of the chromosomes in the nucleus 
of the egg-cell are removed in the first polar body. On 
the other hand, the permutations and combinations of 
hereditary factors that result in new patterns must be in 
some measure congruent with the already established 
architecture. * * * Often indeed the environment selects 
the organisms, but it is also true that organisms some- 
times select their environment. In short, living crea- 
tures are not passive pawns; they play their own game, 
they take a share in their own evolution. Whenever this 
is true, fortuitousness has markedly shrunk, though it 
never disappears. We cannot give a scientific account of 
some of the ‘chances’ that have meant much in our own 
life.’’ : 

‘‘(I) The evolutionist discloses a sublime cosmic pro- 
cess, continuing without rest, without haste, for millions 
of years, with what might be anthropomorphically called 
a patient progressiveness. Not by a sudden fiat has 
Animate Nature come to be as it is, but by a long-drawn- 
out proving or testing and holding fast that which is 
good. | 

‘‘(IT) We discern progressiveness in the long history 
—a movement towards greater integration and differ- 
entiation, towards a fuller and freer life, towards more 
dominance of mind. There are trends in Organic Evolu- 
tion which are in the direction of man’s highest ideals— 
truth-seeking, beauty, and goodwill. No doubt there are 
strange blind alleys—e. g., in Sponges and some Corals— 
with an extraordinary exuberance of sheer complexity 
and yet without any great advance; no doubt there are 
what might be called eddies and retrogressions, simplifi- 


[79] 


Can An Evouvutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? 


cations and even degeneracies; but on the whole Life has 
advanced and evolution has been integrative. That is 
its main trend, and its momentum is behind us, intrinsic 
to our nature and in some measure dynamic in our social 
heritage. 

‘‘(IIT) One idea must be given up—that of the 
‘Divine Artificer’ of the ‘Special Creation’ theology. 
In scientific honesty we are bound to leave behind us 
Paley’s idea that these beautiful fitnesses are the direct 
outcome of Divine skill. But when we surrender an old 
idea because we know it cannot be true, we get some- 
thing in return, not always in the individual life-time, 
but eventually. And in exchange for Paley’s argument 
from Design we get a wider Teleology. The Institution 
of the Order of Nature was such that living creatures 
when they emerged were able to evolve in ever-improving 
adaptedness, in a growing mastery of their environment, 
and with an increasing explicitness of mind. 

““The process of evolution from invisible animalcules 
has a magnificence that cannot be exaggerated. It has 
been a process in which the time required has been, as it 
were, of no consideration, in which for many millions of 
years there has been neither rest nor haste, in which 
broad foundations have been laid so that a splendid 
superstructure has been secure, in which, in spite of the 
disappearance of many masterpieces, there has been a 
conservation of great gains. It has had its outcome in 
personalities who have discerned its magnificent sweep, 
who are seeking to understand its factors, who are learn- 
ing some of its lessons, who cannot cease trying to inter- 
pret it. It looks as if Nature were Nature for a purpose, 
and as we cannot predicate purpose in a vast system, we 
must reverently ascribe it to a Creator. We plead that 
edna picture is in harmony with the Vision of 

od.’ 


Two primary positions appear in these excerpts. Mr. 
Thomson avows the immanency of the Creator and, at 


[80] 


Derects oF T'Heistic EHvoLuTIon 


the same time, recognizes a major role for fortuitous 
evolution. 

Surely, the greatest attribute that any evolutionist 
ean logically assign to deity is wmmanency. Accord- 
ingly, he personalizes nature. To all intents and pur- 
poses, the Creator becomes nature with outcroppings of 
purpose appearing now and then. For him, on the one 
hand, to posit a ‘‘Creator’’ both transcendent to and 
immanent in the universe would surrender his whole 
position. For him, on the other hand, to contend simply 
for the immanency of the Creator in nature discounts 
God. To illustrate, to limit the Creator to a role of 
immanence is to completely identify Him with nature, 
and such identification obviously outlaws His trans- 
cendency. To grant fortuitous evolution is to admit 
accidental changes in natural processes. To admit such 
chance activities leads to two alternative conclusions; 
namely, (1) That some of nature’s activities are not 
comprehended in the purpose of the Creator, or (2) 
That some of them are beyond His control. If, on the 
one hand, the race agrees that some of nature’s activities 
are not comprehended in the purpose of the Creator, 
then it must conclude that He has fashioned or identified 
Himself with a machine which He does not know. If, on 
the other hand, the race agrees that there are natural 
processes beyond the Creator’s control, then it must 
admit that He has fashioned or identified Himself with 
a machine which He cannot run. Therefore, to admit 
any chance functions in any of the processes of the uni- 
verse is to belittle the Creator and, at the same time, 
indict evolutionary Teleology. To assume that the 
Creator would make or identify Himself with a universe 


[81] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CurRistTIAN ? 


that He doesn’t know and can’t or won’t control, indicts 
Him of ignorance, impotence, and indifference. Surely 
the Bible outlaws chance as having widely influenced the 
forms and functions of existences and co-existences. Ex- 
perience and reason both insist that the Creator must be 
an absolute, Transcendent God, or nothing. To com- 
pletely identify Him with nature and assume that He is 
in a process of becoming, part free and part slave, is a 
travesty. 

Who is willing to commit his destiny to a Pilot measur- 
ably fettered, relatively wise, and admittedly incapable 
of controlling the processes of the vessel. No under- 
standing person is willing to follow a more or less blind 
and impotent guide. To do so would but invite ship- 
wreck. Thus immanency, assigned to the Creator by J. 
Arthur Thomson, discounts both God and man. 

In the light of these facts, what should the race do? 
Since it has been seen that the Creator, when assigned 
simply a role of immanence, fails to satisfy the human 
mind and heart, the race should obviously reject such 
leadership. The voice of Logie declares that such 
leadership ensnares both God and His followers. Surely, 
Theistic evolution, in committing God to the method of 
Organic evolution, commits Him to an impossible role, 
and in doing so discounts Him and His followers. 


Discounts God 
The first outstanding defect of the method of Theistic 
evolution is, 7¢ discounts God. By committing Him to 
the Organic method of procedure, it manifestly dis- 
credits His Word, work, wisdom, and worth. 
Theistic evolution discredits God’s Holy Word. It 


[82] 


Derrects oF THeEistic HvoLUTION 


logically challenges the professed source and character 
of the Scriptures because it logically teaches that the 
Bible is a gift of human experience. In making God 
work simply through natural law, it inescapably teaches 
that religious phenomena are naturally induced. Ac- 
cordingly, it substitutes mental illuminations for heay- 
enly inspirations, and human convictions for heavenly 
impressions. The Bible thus becomes a mere accumula- 
tion of humanly approved experiences into which reli- 
gious values have been read. As such, it is only a book 
of history, ethics, and literature. As history, it un- 
scientifically attempts to trace the evolution of the race 
and the development of its institutions. As ethics, it 
unquestionably represents the best Judgment of the race 
in its appraisal of right and wrong. And as literature, 
it unerringly represents the summum bonum in the art 
of thought. It is Ciceronian in beauty, Shakesperian 
in comedy and tragedy, and Wilsonian in clarity. As 
history, it has little scientific value. As ethics, it reflects 
the best judgment of the race. And as literature, it 
reaches the superbest heights of human thought. 
Finally, if the Bible is simply a book of history, ethies, 
and literature, it logically follows that it may be sup- 
planted at any time by the Bible of the World. If 
the Bible is but a humanly created book, then Theistic 
evolutionists have grounds for substituting the ‘‘Bible 
of the Word’’ for the Holy Bible. Accordingly, the 
Holy Bible is but a gift of the human past. Its miracu- 
lous claims are but outcroppings of magic. And its his- 
toricity is most questionable. Thus, Theistic evolution 
plays the Holy Writ down to the level of carnality, 
ascribes to all of it relative values, and forces it into the 


[83] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? 


category of human achievement. When a disciple of 
Theistic evolution reads, ‘‘All Scripture is given by 
inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for re- 
proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,’’ 
or, when he reads, ‘‘ Heaven and earth shall pass away 
but my word shall not pass away,’’ two alternatives in- 
escapably await him. If he is intellectually honest, he 
will confess, on the one hand, that the Bible is an un- 
scientific and erroneous book, or, he will admit, on the 
other hand, that his evolutionary assumption is unsound 
and in turn accept involution. Since the Scriptures are 
given by inspiration of God, they are involutionary, not 
evolutionary. The very premises of Theistic evolution 
cheapen the Word of God. 

Theistic evolution discredits God’s work. It logically 
reduces His labors from the plane of the supernatural to 
the level of the natural. In doing so, it flays the marvel- 
lous and the wondrous in the reign of God’s grace. 

Accordingly, Theistic evolution outlaws the miraculous 
in God’s creative activities; insists that all the forms of 
the universe are gradual evolutions; and removes the 
transcendent element in the Genesis account of creation. 
But, according to Genesis, God created both the in- 
animate and the animate forms of life, the inanimate 
being disclosed in the larger aspects of the universe, and 
the animate in the vegetable, the animal, and the human 
kingdoms. God created not only the various species but 
He set bounds for each special creation by limiting each 
to bring forth after its kind. 

By the process of like begetting like, He absolutely 
circumscribes the life activities of each specie. But, 
according to Theistic evolution, God evolves all exis- 


[84] 


Degrects oF THeistic EivoLuTion 


tences from lower to higher forms through series of 
eradual changes. Such a process obviously denies spe- 
cial creation and in turn affirms the transmutation of 
species. 

Genesis teaches that like begets like. Theistic evolu- 
tion teaches that like begets luke until it doesn’t. The 
first denies the transmutation of species. The second 
openly declares the same. With reference to the teach- 
ing of the latter, it is important to remember that trans- 
mutations discount the special creations indicated in 
Genesis. 

Theistic evolution outlaws the miraculous in God’s 
re-creative activities. Accordingly, salvation is but an 
end-result of the learning process. In fostering a natu- 
ralistic method for God, Theistic evolution discounts the 
power of the Blood and flays the supernatural elements 
of the Cross in the plan of redemption. 

In spite of this logical negation of mGernariealigne 
God’s miraculous work is declared in the Bible, and is 
disclosed in the lives of redeemed souls. Bible evidence 
of His miraculous power is revealed in the Sinaitie visi- 
tations, the translation of Elijah ,the cleansing of Naa- 
man, and the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of 
Jesus Christ. The miraculous work of God is not only 
revealed in His redemptive activities, but the marvellous 
and the miraculous are everywhere disclosed in all exis- 
tences. It is safe to say that if His work is not mirac- 
ulous, then it is meaningless. 

God’s miraculous work of redemption is revealed in 
His Son. ‘‘For God sent not His Son into the world to 
condemn the world but that the world should be saved 
through Him.’’ Oh, the mystery of it! ‘‘The wind 


[85] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound 
thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it 
goeth. So doth every one that is born of the Spirit.’’ 
Oh, the marvel of it! Life lives upon death. ‘‘And I, 
if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.’’ God in- 
carnate is here offered as the condition of human succor. 
The judgment of millions is that Christ alone can save, 
and that the race is helpless to redeem itself, Theistic 
evolution notwithstanding to the contrary. 

According to the logic of Theistic evolution, Jesus 
Christ was but a super-man. As such, He represented 
in Himself the crown of nature’s chance selections. It is 
pointed out that by virtue of His superiority He was 
able to salvage His ethics from the accumulated mass of . 
the race’s moral and religious traditions, and to organize 
His findings into an Hthical Theism with a view to help- 
ing the race lift itself by its own bootstraps. In fol- 
lowing the lead of Logic, Theistic evolution substitutes 
cultural salvation for blood redemption. Such a substi- 
tution is obvious since the organic process denies the doc- 
trine of total depravity, and affirms the infallibilty of 
human nature. Now, if man is naturally good, such a 
state of being would obviate the need of regeneration. 
Accordingly, the superlative need of the race is direction, 
not cleansing. 

Notwithstanding the fact that Theistic evolution logi- 
cally outlaws the existence and function of a miraculous 
God, and outlaws the fact and function of depraved 
human nature, clouds of witnesses whose integrity can- 
not be questioned, freely confess their natural bent to 
sin, and gladly witness to saving grace as disclosed in 
Christ Jesus. The Bible universally declares man’s guilt 


[86] 


Derscts oF TxHeistic EvoLutTion 


and asserts Christ’s power to save from sin. Millions of 
blood-washed redeemed daily attest His amazing grace, 
and myriads of translated blood-washed souls fill the 
welkins of heaven with pans of endless praise. 

God’s plenteous work of grace is disclosed in His 
attitude toward and in His tireless efforts to save and 
to serve untoward generations of people. God’s atti- 
tudes and efforts are absolute negations of Theistic 
evolution. 

God is no respecter of persons. ‘‘Of a truth I perceive 
that God is no respecter of persons.’’ Yet, Theistic 
evolution would have God evolve classes among men, and 
establish human activities upon the basis of caste lines. 

God is compassionate. ‘‘ Jehovah willeth the death of 
none, but that all should be brought to repentance.’’ 
Yet, Theistic evolution would have God evolve the fit 
by forcibly eliminating the hapless and the helpless. 

God eternally cares for His own. ‘‘There shall not 
any man be able to stand before Thee all the days of 
thy life. As I was with Moses, so TI will be with thee. 
I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.’’ Yet, Theistic 
evolution outlaws God’s providence by causing Him to 
work heartlessly and blindly. 

God is love’s exemplar. ‘‘For God so loved the world 
that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever be- 
lieveth on Him should not perish but have everlasting 
life.” He so loved that He gave. Yet, Theistic evolu- 
tion causes Him to sharpen His sword and to eliminate 
the hapless and the helpless by means of war, famine, 
disease, sin, and death. 

God eternally fellowships His own. ‘‘Or ever the silver 


[87] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


cord be loosed or the golden bow! be broken or the pitcher 
be broken at the fountain or the wheel at the cistern, 
then shall the dust return unto the earth as it was and 
the Spirit shall return to God who gave it.’’ ‘‘For we 
know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not 
made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’’ Yet, Theistic 
evolution denies such a heaven and fellowship for hu- 
man souls because it logically denies the existence of 
eternal righteousness and a world supernal. It mani- 
festly outlaws the ministry of God’s grace in the life of 
men and women, and chills the heart of His followers 
by logically destroying their heaven. 

Theistic evolution discredits God’s wisdom. It logi- 
cally commits Him to aimless and heartless procedure, 
and assigns Him to a blind and purposeless role in the 
processes of life. Accordingly, the universal wisdom of 
God is functionless; the universal purpose of God is 
subordinated to chance activities; and the universal love 
of God is polluted by eliminating the helpless and the 
hapless by means of war, famine, disease, sin, and death. 
Now, to assume that an all-wise, powerful, and loving 
God would commit Himself to an aimless, heartless, and 
blind role in the life of the race is to dub Him both mad 
and criminal. Surely such an assumption flays His wis- 
dom. How incongruous! How could God have glory 
in the universe if it were simply a product of accidental 
variations? But it shows purpose and design! ‘‘The 
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament 
showeth His handiwork.’’ The universe, its life, its 
laws, its all, discloses God to be immutably wise and 
eternally incapable of incongruity. His method does not 


[88] 


Derects oF THEISTIC EvoLuTiIon 


ensnare His motive, neither does His mode of activity 
discredit His wisdom. 

Finally, Theistic evolution discredits the worth of 
God. It logically robs Him of the attributes of deity. 
In playing down His Word, His work, and His wisdom, 
it discredits His incomparable and glorious integrity. 
Such evolution scales His worth down to the level of 
man. To impute to God divine wisdom and universal 
compassion, and, in turn, assign Him to a blind and 
heartless role is to play Him down to the level of a 
poltroon. Human beings intelligently translate their 
thoughts into acts; why not God? Human beings create 
love programs; why not God? Is He shorn of judg- 
ment? Is He divorced of affections? To impute to God 
omnipresence, providence and boundless love, and in 
turn cause Him to exterminate the hapless and helpless 
by war, famine, disease, sin, and death in order to 
guarantee the survival of the fittest is to impugn His 
integrity, and characterize Him as diabolically brutal 
and bestial. Shall He be dubbed Dr. Jekyl and Mr. 
Hyde? NO! No! 

‘God does not cut off His nose to spite His face.’’ 
God is an infinite and all-wise unity; hence, He refuses 
to fetter His worth by His method of work. Although 
Theistic evolution, in ascribing to God a naturalistic 
method of work, denies His supernatural attributes and 
activities, and seeks to explain all of His miracles in 
terms of super-physical processes, that is, in terms of 
the mind’s mastery over natural forces; and, although 
it everywhere belittles His supernatural activities, He 
nevertheless continues to ‘‘move in a mysterious way His 
wonders to perform.’’ Theistic evolution may assert 


[89] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


that preternaturalism is adequate to explain all the 
miracles of the Bible and the marvels of nature, but 
orthodox Christians will refuse to surrender their age- 
long, tested, and miraculous heritage for such a mess of 
intellectual pottage. Christendom attests with great 
unanimity the miraculousness of His achievements. 

To summarize and draw conclusions concerning this 
first big defect, it is obvious that Theistic evolution dis- 
counts God because it divides Him in Himself, in His 
leaderships, and in His redemptive work. 

By thought, He exalts righteousness; by acts, He 
authorizes sin. By heart, He woos the world; by acts, 
He callously destroys it. By will, He elects man out of 
His love; by acts, He heartlessly slays him. 

By voice, He commands the race to rise up and build; 
by example, He turns its energies toward self-destruc- 
tion. By voice, He exalts love motives; by example, He 
magnifies egoism. 

By lip, He avows His Saviorhood; by life He re- 
nounces it. By lip, he exalts supernaturalism in salva- 
tion; by life, He exalts naturalism in redemption. 

Now, Theistic evolution, in dividing God in Himself, 
in His leadership, and in His redemptive work of grace, 
discredits Him. A divided God tends to be neutralized. 
Just in proportion as God is neutralized, the work of 
evil is accelerated among men. It is the author’s candid 
opinion that Theistic evolution, as a doctrine, is easily a 
spiritual asp whose poisonous exudations slowly but 
surely make the race immune to many other deathly 
vials, and is, as a consequence, seriously imperilling the 
work of God’s grace. Now, what shall orthodox Chris- 
tians do? Shall they sit and fold their hands supinely 


[90] 


Derects oF THeistic Evolution 


and let their spiritual treasures be sacked? No! They 
must fight! They must remember that God is an un- 
divided unity; that He has not turned the world over 
to man; that He moves and none ean hinder; that He 
laughs at His enemies and holds them in derision; that 
in His appointed time He shall perfect His will in man; 
and that the race shall one day sing, ‘‘The Kingdoms of 
this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of 
His Christ.’’ God has not and does not and will not pit 
His acts against His Word, His work, His wisdom, and 
His worth. 


Gets Man in Bad 


The second outstanding defect of the method of Theis- 
tic evolution is, it gets man in bad. In discrediting the 
Word, work, wisdom, and worth of God, it undermines 
human hope, fmth, confidence, and love. 

The discrediting of God’s Word undermines human 
hope. The Bible alone stands between man and the 
valleys. When its promises are discredited, human hope 
is blasted. Its promises are moorings for the prevention 
of universal drifts. It alone provides heavenly lenses 
and heavenly light for an intelligent envisaging of the 
future. It alone inspires and impels the race on to the 
doing of tasks, the completion of which can only be 
realized in eternity. Discredit the Bible and you destroy 
it. Destroy it, and the race is doomed. Humanity, in 
rejecting the Bible as God’s Word, robs itself of the 
cuidance of omniscience and as a consequence treads the 
desolate paths of sin and death. Discredit God’s Word 
and hope is gone. A lost hope means a lost world. 

The discrediting of God’s work undermines human 


[91] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


faith. What about birth from above, if the incarnation 
is a myth? What about Christ satisfying mercy and 
justice in His death on the Cross, if He was but a super- 
man? What about the atonement, if man and God have 
never been alienated? What about the Lordship and 
Saviorhood of Jesus Christ, if man is to lift himself by 
his own bootstraps? 

Oh, soul, whither shall man turn if God’s redemptive 
work is discredited, and faith in Him is undermined? 
To whom shall he go? To Hammurabi, to Alexander, to 
Caesar, to Charlemagne, to Lloyd George, to Woodrow 
Wilson, or to W. G. Harding? No! These all evidence 
mistakes common to the masses. Shall the race turn to 
Gautama, to Confucius, to Mahomet, to Joseph Smith, 
or to Shailer Matthews? No! No! These also evidence 
weaknesses common to man. If the works of such men 
as these cannot command the faith of the race, then 
what? Its only alternative, is to turn to God. ‘‘Have 
faith in God.’’ Peter enunciated the same conclusion 
when he said to Jesus, ‘‘To whom shall we go, seeing 
that Thou alone hast the words of life?’’ To under- 
mine man’s faith in Christ’s leadership means chaos 
and death. 

The discrediting of God’s wisdom undermines con- 
fidence in the eternal admumstration of His grace. Hu- 
manity refuses to follow leadership whose wisdom is 
seriously questioned. If the race spurns the wisdom of 
God, then its only alternative is to fall back upon its own 
unstable and changeless nature. To destroy man’s con- 
fidence in the wisdom of God would tend to destroy pres- 
ent day religious sanctions, and would cause increasing 
regnance of disorder and decay. Without the absolute 


[92] 


Derrscts oF THeistic EivoLuTIon 


wisdom of God, which is revealed in His Bi-nomial Word 
—His Christ and His Book—there would be no alterna- 
tive for man except drift. Such a drift, inevitable and 
hopeless, would slowly but surely register the race’s 
doom. Blasted confidence means a chaotic and ruined 
world. 

The discrediting of God’s worth undermines human 
love. Love is the supreme measure of worth. It is the 
spiritual nectar which sweetens and inspirits the race. 
Like the morning lark vesturing the fragrance of dawn 
with song, it hghtens the heavy heart and turns its sighs 
into cheer. Discount love and life is marred; express it 
and life is florid. Love excelling; love surpassing the 
love of woman disclosed on the Cross is discredited by 
Theistic evolution. Love born of the heart of the in- 
imitable and incomparable Christ is played down to 
mere sentiments by Theistic intellectuals. Love born 
of hope and faith in Him fades and dies under the im- 
pact of such rationalism. In putting a question mark 
after His atonement and His all-sufficient Saviorhood, 
and in discounting His miracles and His marvels of 
grace, Theistic evolution tends to cause the race to turn 
its back upon absolute love and to commit itself to its 
own egoistic ways. Get this! Tab it! Forget it not! 
The heart of evolution is race egoism. From the begin- 
ning of the race until this hour, man has been enthroning 
himself and dethroning God. Of all the egoistic acts of 
man, the most consummate bit of selfishness that has 
ever been delivered from the matrix of carnality is the 
child—Theistic evolution. The most damning doctrine 
that Hell has ever spawned in the hearts of men is the 
same intellectualism. It has just enough truth in it to 


[93] 


Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


attract, and just enough error in it to kill. It attracts 
because it fits the self-assertive nature of man and it 
kills because it discounts the work and worth of God’s 
love. Surely the discrediting of God’s worth under- 
mines man’s love. 

Now, is it not obvious that Theistic evolution com- 
promises the race’s well-being. In its tendency to de- 
stroy human hope, faith, confidence, and love, it mani- 
festly gets man in bad. 

The full significance of this is not entirely disclosed 
in man’s break with God, but it is further revealed in 
the fact that negative religious attitudes carry over 
into life’s activities. To illustrate, faithlessness toward 
God tends to carry over into faithlessness toward man. 
Infidelity toward God is antecedent to and prophetic 
of infidelity toward man. 

In conclusion, Reader friend, do you not, granting 
the author’s definition, agree that Theistic evolution gets 
both God and man in bad? That in putting a question 
mark after His Word, work, wisdom, and worth, it dis- 
eredits Him? That in causing man to shut himself up 
to himself it obscures life, light, and love? And that in 
accepting Theistic evolution, man presses to his heart a 
spiritual vampire which gradually saps the vitals of his 
spirit nature and fixes his footsteps in the ways of death ? 

Finally, do you not agree that it is yet to be demon- 
strated that God’s method fetters His motives or that 
His activities belie His Word, discount His work, becloud 
His wisdom, and discredit His worth? When Theistic 
evolution logically assumes that God has a mind but re- 
fuses to use it, that He has a heart but refuses to disclose 


[94] 


Derects oF T'He1stic KHvoLuTIoNn 


it, and that He has a will but refuses to exercise it, 
Reason must indict such an inconsistency. 


Message 


In the light of the definition presented at the outset 
of this study, the message of Theistic evolution logically 
discredits special creations, the fall, regeneration from 
above, the Lordship and Saviorhood of Jesus, the blood 
atonement, the resurrection, and the objective immor- 
tality of the soul. It logically declares God to be an all- 
powerful, all-wise, all-loving, helpless, and ignorant 
monster. Theistic evolution must be met, discredited, 
routed by the sword of truth—God’s Bi-Nomial Word. 
Let it ever be remembered that God does not work 
against Himself; that He does not undermine His own 
_ program; and that He does not surrender His kingdom 
to the creatures whom He brought forth. God the sov- 
ereign does not become a subject. The infinite sanctity, 
sagacity, and sovereignty of God must ever be preserved 
inviolate. 


[95] 


CHAPTER V 


Passing of Christian Doctrine 


REVIOUS studies have revealed three significant 

’ aspects for both Organic and Theistic evolution; 
namely, meaning, method, and message. 

In meaning, Organic evolution is a natural process of 
unfolding from within to without, never from without 
to within. In method, it is nature selecting through 
variation and elimination. And in message, it is a pro- 
test against God, a person, and an emphasis upon God, 
a process. ! 

In meaning, Theistic evolution is Organic evolution 
with God read into the process. In method, it is God 
selecting through natural law. And in message, it is an 
approbation of the evolutionary method, and an em- 
phasis upon God as an all-powerful, all-wise, and all- 
loving fool. 

In Organic evolution, the rule of an intelligent per- 
sonality is not acknowledged. In Theistic evolution, the 
existence of an intelligent, but indeterminate, person- 
ality is recognized. The previous chapter reveals the 
logical bearing of Theistic evolution upon God and man. 
The present chapter discloses the influence of Organic 
evolution upon orthodox Christian doctrines. To all 
intents and purposes, both classes of evolution outlaw 
an active reign for the Infinite God. 

In outlawing the reign of an Infinite Personality, 
Organic evolution outlaws the divinity of the Bible. In 


[96] 


Passina oF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 


outlawing its divinity, it outlaws the supernatural doc- 
trines contained therein. Hence, Bible claims to abso- 
luteness must consequently pass. To Organic evolution- 
ists, the Bible is but a human production, or a mere 
accumulation of relative values. They insist that Bible 
standards are products of mental illuminations; that 
right and wrong are human and relative; and that 
orthodox doctrines are merely approved human judg- 
ments. 

Will not all admit, granting the absoluteness of the 
Seriptures to be nil, that orthodox Christian doctrines 
are groundless, and that under the influence of objective 
science they must in time pass into the junk heap of 
man’s honest mistakes? If Organic evolutionary con- 
tentions are true, the absolute claims of the Scriptures 
must dissipate before the searchlight of scientific investi- 
gation and achievement. 

In assuming that God is but a process, in asserting that 
the Bible is but an accumulation of humanly approved 
experiences into which religious values have been read, 
and in maintaining that natural forces are determinative 
in all achievements, Organic evolution completely out- 
laws supernaturalism and in doing so, obviously outlaws 
Bible fundamentals. 

Admittedly a study of Bible doctrines may be ap- 
proached from different angles. In the following study, 
the author has chosen to break somewhat with the pre- 
vious organization of Christian theology. While super- 
naturalism constitutes the organizing principle of his 
study, different emphasis and correlations are freely 
made. 

In surveying the influence of Organic evolution upon 


[97] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


Bible doctrines, it will be found that it outlaws the 
doctrine of a supernatural God, the doctrine of a super- 
naturally endowed mankind, the doctrine of supernat- 
ural manifestations, the doctrine of supernatural re- 
demption, and the doctrine of supernatural rewards. 


A Supernatural God 


By virtue of its nature and definition, Organic evolu- 
tion outlaws the fact of a Transcendent God. Accord- 
ingly, God is but a process. All would agree that such 
a definition excludes the existence of a supreme and 
superlative intelligence. Since such evolution main- 
tains that nature’s processes are from within to without 
and never from without to within, there can be no need 
or place for a Transcendent God to come into the life of 
individuals. As previously seen, such a role would be a 
source of interference rather than aid. Now, if Organic 
evolution will not admit of an involutionary process and 
if Jehovah’s informational, providential, and re-crea- 
tional activities are involutionary, then such evolution 
manifestly outlaws the claims of the Scripture’s deity. 

In rejecting the claims of the Infinite God, Organic 
evolution outlaws the idea of the Trinity. In proclaiming 
the God-head to be an inconsistent doctrine, it obviously 
outlaws the Trinity, and consequently tabooes the idea of 
God, the Father, universally protecting human beings; 
the idea of God, the Son, miraculously saving from sin 
and shame; and the idea of God, the Spirit, everlastingly 
wooing men from the lowlands of sin and selfishness unto 
the highlands of righteousness and truth. It proclaims 
unity in trinity to be an incongruous doctrine. 

In assuming that God is but a process, Organic evolu- 


[98] 


Passtine oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE 


tion destroys the concept of God, a loving, powerful, and 
all-wise Father, ever and anon providing for and pro- 
tecting His creatures. In assuming that Christ is but a | 
super-man, it destroys the concept of God incarnate and 
outrages the faith of those who trust Him as Savior and 
Lord. And in assuming that the Holy Spirit is but a 
mental figment, it destroys the concept of God, a Com- 
forter, and outlaws the role of providence and love. 

Concerning the first assumption, the author’s point of 
view is disclosed in the second division of Chapter I. 
He shows there that Reason, Philosophy, Experience, 
and Revelation all agree as one that a rational explana- 
tion of the universe must be grounded in an Infinite Per- 
sonality, creating, controlling, and crowning. In the 
light of facts previously adduced, the doctrine of God, 
the Father, would pass with the acceptance of Organic 
evolution. 

Concerning the second assumption, it is clear, granting 
the Organic evolutionary hypothesis to be true, that the 
race has no need for the God-man. ‘To illustrate, if man 
never fell, then there was and is no need of a Savior; 
hence, the redemptive preachments of Jesus and the 
soulful songs of poets about Christ the Savior all become 
just so many mistakes. In reducing Christ from the 
plane of Infinity to the level of humanity, he becomes, 
not a Savior from sin, but a pattern, an example, a 
human exemplar for the ages. Accordingly, Christ does 
not save, but the race, patterning its conduct after Him, 
saves itself. Thus, the Cross of Christ becomes of none 
effect, a huge mistake in the race’s attempt to find salva- 
tion and succor. For Jesus and the race, the Cross be- 
comes, not a crime, but a delusion. 


[99] 


Can An Evoxuvutionist Bz A CHristiIAn? 


Now, if the Cross of Christ is not saving, then it must 
be enslaving. If the Cross was but a huge mistake in the 
race’s attempt to find salvation and succor, then to wor- 
ship Him who died thereon means the enslavement of 
each deluded worshipper. It would thus follow that 
the ‘‘dead hands of the past’’ manacle our manifold 
present. 

As previously indicated, Organic evolutionists assert 
the humanity, and deny the deity of Jesus. In thus re- 
ducing Christ from deity to humanity, it becomes idol- 
atry to worship Him. In extolling His humanity and 
denying His deity, Organic evolutionists say, ‘* The glory 
of Jesus is that He is just like me.’’ And ‘‘Don’t trust 
Jesus, it is against progress.’’ Now if, on the one hand, 
they insist that Jesus is the same as they, and, on the 
other hand, declare that Christ-worship is against prog- 
ress, then they logically proclaim their own impotency 
to achieve. Accordingly, humanity is doomed to dwell 
in a world of endless despair and sojourn in a land of 
unending defeat. In the hands of Organic evolutionists, 
Christ ceases to be God and becomes simply a man. 
Therefore, the doctrine of the Saviorhood and Lordship 
of Jesus, or the doctrine of God, the Son, passes with the 
acceptance of the doctrine of Organic evolution. 

Concerning the third assumption, it is clear, granting 
the above evolutionary hypothesis to be true, that the 
race has no need of the Holy Spirit. To illustrate, if the 
Holy Spirit is but a mental figment created by the fer- 
tile imagination of some genius, then to reverence Him 
would be but to commit the race to the leadership of 
mere fantasy. According to Organic evolution, such a 
person does not exist; hence, any worship of Him would 


[100] 


Passina oF Curistian DoctRINE 


be irrational. Admitting, for argument’s sake, that the 
Holy Spirit is but a mental figment, a personalized ideal 
fabricated by some creative intelligence, one fails to see 
the reason for rejecting the work of fertile imagination 
when it relates to orthodox religion and accepting it 
when it relates to Organic evolutionary science. In the 
last analysis, all that Organic evolutionists can offer for 
human succor and salvation is the creative intelligence 
of the race. Concerning the problem involved here, no 
one would think of contending that a personalized ideal 
would be less potent than impersonal ethics. Notwith- 
standing the obvious agreement here, neither a fig- 
mentary personality nor rationalized ethics can satisfy 
the claims of logic or the importunities of longing souls. 
It takes a personal God in the role of a Comforter to 
satisfy these. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Bible discloses the 
Holy Spirit to be a wooer unto righteousness and a 
winner unto salvation, the Third Person of the Trinity, 
whose office is to convict the world of sin, of righteous- 
ness, and of judgment, He is actually and completely 
outlawed by Organic evolutionists when they assume 
that unity cannot be maintained through trinity. 

In denying the existence of a personal and a triune 
God, a God who assumes the role of a Father, of a Son, 
and of a Comforter, such evolutionists outlaw the doc- 
trine of election, with its correlative principles; namely, 
fore-knowledge, fore-ordination, and _ pre-destination. 
They cannot admit the existence of a person with these 
powers without denying their present day biogenetic doc- 
trine; that is, the doctrine that life comes from preceding 
life. Accordingly, to assume the existence of an Infinite 


[101] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


Creative Spirit, antecedent to the presence of life furms, 
would manifestly be unscientific. 

In facing the doctrine of election, the race faces truth 
so profound as to almost stagger the human mind. Its 
heights, its depths, and its breadths are too great for 
the finite mind to fully comprehend. Notwithstanding 
the heights, and depths, and breadths of this great doc- 
trine, there are elements in it which the human mind and 
heart can discern. 

As to fore-knowledge, man can image God thinking 
out the universe, behold Him envisioning its bounda- 
ries, and see Him delineating the frontiers of life. Man 
can see Him beholding, choosing, and providing for a 
race unborn. As to fore-ordination, man can image His 
heart-throb as He witnessed the ages fetter the crown 
of His creatures, can behold His determination as He 
plans their freedom, and can see Him, out of incom- 
parable love, fore-ordain the helpless to eternal life 
through Jesus Christ. Thus, Christ stood as a lamb 
Slain from the foundation of the world. Before the 
world was, before the earth was peopled with immortal 
spirits, God fore-ordained human redemption through 
the efficacy of the Cross. As to pre-destination, man 
can image God willing that any work initiated by Him- 
self should be absolutely completed; can behold Him 
measuring and counting the cost of realizing His 
goal; and can see Him swearing by Himself because He 
could swear by no greater, that heavenly anchored souls 
should be in Him both sure and steadfast. In short, man 
ean see that God has aforetime beheld, chosen, and pre- 
destined human beings unto salvation and a heavenly 
abode in the land of the cloudless day. 


[102] 


Passina oF Curistian DoctRINE 


It is safe to say that no doctrine is more appealing 
to the intellect, more satisfying to the conscience, and 
more soothing to the heart than is the great doctrine 
of election. Notwithstanding its measureless signifi- 
cance, Organic evolution completely destroys it, and in 
doing so it outlaws the doctrine of God a supernatural 
Personality. 


A Supernaturally Endowed Mankind 


Orgamc evolution outlaws the doctrine of man, a 
supernaturally endowed creature. It denies that the 
spirit of man is supernaturally bestowed, or that man is 
a living spirit. The explanation of this negative atti- 
tude is revealed in the following. If man were super- 
naturally endowed, then his gifts would be involution- 
ary. If his gifts were involutionary, then the foundation 
of Organic evolution would be destroyed. This is evi- 
dent when one remembers that Organic evolution out- 
laws involution. The presence of the latter unques- 
tionably discredits the former. The two processes are 
absolutely diametrical. 

A contrast between the teaching of Organic evolution 
and of Christianity concerning man is pertinent at this 
point. Organic evolution insists that man is a learning 
animal. Christianity contends that man is a living 
spirit. With the one, man entered upon his human so- 
journ without knowledge. With the other, man began life 
with great wisdom. With the one, man’s early environ- 
ment was harsh and perilous. With the other, man’s 
early environment was peaceful and plenteous. With 
the first, man’s pathway was up and out. With the 
second, man’s pathway descended into the valleys. With 


[103] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHristIan? 


the first, man is naturally good. With the second, man 
was good only before the fall. Orthodox Christians 
maintain that man rejected the counsel of God, substi- 
tuted his own will for the sovereignty of heaven, and 
consequently fell from the holy and happy state in 
which he was created. Thus, the race entered upon a 
new plane of behavior known as carnality. The sinless 
man before the fall became the sinful man after the fall. 

Organic evolution, in rejecting the doctrine of the fall, 
further denies human endowments from above. It 
assumes that man is an end-result of an evolutionary 
process and that he is simply a learning animal. It is 
pointed out that his life activities have been, are, and 
ever shall be climbing activities. To illustrate, it 
teaches that when man became a human animal he was 
higher than he was when he was merely an ape; that 
when he attained one thought, he was higher than he 
was when he had none; that when he approved ideas 
he was higher than he was when he had no code; that 
when he developed religious concepts he was higher than 
he was when he had no religion; and that when he 
developed monotheistic worship he was higher than he 
was when he worshipped many gods. Thus, it appears 
that man’s pathway has been up and out. This school 
of thinkers boldly claims that the only fall that man ever 
had was a fall upward. 

In rejecting the fall, Organic evolution also outlaws 
the doctrine of sin through the fall. Now, if man never 
fell, there can be no such a thing as inherent depravity ; 
and if no inherent depravity, then the Bible doctrine of — 
sin becomes a mere myth. Accordingly, if Organie evo- 


[104] 


PasstnGc oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE 


lution outlaws the doctrine of a fall, it destroys the doc- 
trine of sin through the fall. 

In destroying the doctrine of the fall and the doctrine 
of sin through the fall, Organic evolution assumes the 
natural goodness of the individual. This assumption 
reduces man to the plane of the animal and consigns his 
sins unto the category of mistakes or mal-adjustments. 
The fallacy of the doctrine of the infallibility of original 
nature was revealed in Chapter I. A further discussion 
of it is not necessary here. 


Supernatural Manifestations 


Organic evolution outlaws the doctrine of super- 
natural manifestations or revelations. The reason for 
this is obvious. As previously seen, there cannot be in- 
volution in evolution. Revelation manifestly implies a 
process from without to within, and it is definitely ex- 
emplified in God’s Bi-Nomial Word—the Message and 
the Messenger, or the Bible and its Christ. 

In the first place, Organic evolution outlaws the Bible. 
As hitherto noted, such evolution teaches that the Bible 
is not God’s revealed will to man, but that it is a 
humanly created book containing ideals, standards, cus- 
toms, and traditions by which the race measures and 
sanctions its conduct. Now, if the Bible is no more than 
man ‘‘feeling out for the Infinite, not the Infinite re- 
vealing Himself to man,’’ if it is but a humanly evolved 
Book, then the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the 
Scriptures falls flat, and the very most that can be said 
for it is that it ‘‘contains the word of God.’’ Organic 
evolution teaches that the Bible contains mistakes, ele- 
ments of myth, and traditions. Accordingly, it is a 


[105] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


false guide, a retrogressive influence, and an encourager 
of immoralities among the sons of men. 

In outlawing the Bible, it outlaws the miraculous con- 
tent of the Word of God. In assuming that the Bible 
is but a human product, any avowed manifestations of 
God become mere mental figments. Thus, the story of 
the Ark, Jonah and the Whale, the Handwriting on the 
Wall, the Translation of Enoch and Elijah, the Trans- 
figuration on the Mount, the Appearance of Christ to 
Paul on the way to Damascus, and the Apocalypse, are 
all mere mental abstractions, fabricated by fertile imag- 
inations, approved by earth’s sojourners, and handed 
down to unthinking religious worshippers. 

In the second place, Organic evolution outlaws the 
doctrine of the God-man. If the incarnation is a fact, 
it is admittedly a miraculous one. As would be ex- 
pected, Organic evolutionists offer strenuous objections 
to this profesedly miraculous event. First, they oppose 
it because it would violate the selective functions of 
natural law. Second, because it would interfere with the 
normal functions of natural processes. And third, be- 
cause it would be none other than a supernatural phe- 
nomenon. 

Organic evolutionists distinctly taboo revelations of 
every nature. As a rule, they have a great antipathy 
toward accepting Christ as God revealed. They claim 
that such a doctrine smacks of the mystic, the wondrous, 
the magic, and the idolatrous. Accordingly, Christ- 
worship is distinctly idolatrous and irrational. 

Notwithstanding such evolutionary leadings, no honest- 
minded student of the Bible can fail to observe its super- 
natural teachings. When it says, ‘‘The Lord formed 


[106] 


Passine oF Curistian Doctrine 


man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his 
nostrils the breath of lfe, and man became a living 
soul,’’ he doubts not that it represents an act which 
transcends any possible functions of natural law. The 
dominance of the human character clearly illustrates 
this. When the Bible says, ‘‘So he drove out the man 
and he placed at the East of the Garden of Eden cheru- 
bim and a flaming sword which turned every way to 
keep the way of the Tree of Life,’’ he doubts not that it 
is declaring the fall of man. When it says, ‘‘He was 
wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, 
and with His stripes we are healed,’’ he doubts not that 
God promises redemption to a fallen race. And when 
the Scriptures say, ‘‘Fear not, for behold I bring you 
good tidings of great joy, for unto you is born this day 
in the city of David a Savior which is Christ the Lord,”’ 
he doubts not that the promises of redemption made in 
the Old Testament are being fulfilled. 

Orthodox Christianity maintains that it was man’s 
badness and not his goodness which brought Jesus from 
Heaven, and that it was man’s sin, and not his un- 
selfishness, which caused the Searchlight of Omniscience 
to be given unto benighted sons of men. Christianity 
asserts that man’s sin produces spiritual darkness, and 
thus occasions the necessity for God’s revelation of light. 
It asserts that man in darkness needs light; that man in 
the wilderness needs a guide; that man on the breakers 
needs a lighthouse; and that wayfaring man in the 
mazes of life needs a chart and compass. It further 
claims that God, in meeting these needs, reveals His 


[107] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


Word and discloses His Son; hence, the Bi-Nomial Word 
is God’s revelation to a needy race. 

The Bible is manifestly a book of revelations. It is 
Heaven’s light for earth’s spiritual night. It is God’s 
information for a spiritually unenlightened race. It re- 
veals the mind and heart of God to the mind and heart of 
man. It is fully inspired of God, and is revealed to men 
through human instrumentalities; thus, it is involution- 
ary, not evolutionary. | 

To sum up, Organic evolution outlaws revelation and 
inspiration. Under its influence the Holy Bible loses 
divine nature and takes on human tone. It becomes 
merely a book of myth, or of traditions, or of ethical 
ideals. Under its influence the ideal, Christ, the God- 
man, is frayed and frazzled, the doctrine of blood re- 
demption is regularly ridiculed, and the rule of divine 
grace is contemptuously tabooed. 


Supernatural Redemption 


According to Organic evolution, salvation is essentially 
a human achievement. It is simply cultural develop- 
ment, or an end-result of the learning process. Accord- 
ingly, salvation comes through a process of reducing 
ethical knowledge to objective expression. In the last 
analysis, it is an earthly and ethical manner of living, 
or a humane habit of acting. Such a state is obviously 
part personal and part social. At any stage of develop- 
ment cultural salvation, strictly speaking, is a human 
achievement. | 

By way of contrast, orthodox Christianity maintains 
that salvation is from above. It contends that it is an 
end-result of an involutionary process in which God 


[108] 


ae 


Passine oF CHRISTIAN DocTRINE 


from without induces repentance and faith within, and 
through Christ applies the spiritual blood which cleanses 
man’s heart from sin and purges his spirit of dross. 

To recapitulate, let no one forget that if there was no 
fall there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no need 
of a savior. If there is no need of a savior, there is no 
need of the Christ. If there is no need of the Christ, 
there is no need of the Cross. If there is no need of the 
Cross, there is no need of the blood. If there is no need 
of the blood, there is no life. Hence, the acceptance of 
Organic evolution means the death of Christianity. 
Organic evolution, in destroying these treasuries of 
truth, emasculates Christianity of every basic principle 
and absolutely outlaws supernaturalism in redemption. 


Supernatural Rewards 


Orgame evolution outlaws the doctrine of Heaven and 
Hell. In short, it denies the existence of another world 
in which an assize could be set up to render judgment 
concerning deeds done in the body. In outlawing a 
heavenly assize, it destroys the rewards, which come as 
the result of judgment. In denying the attainment of 
heaven, a place of joy, peace, and rest, a place where 
moth doth not corrupt or thieves do not break in and 
steal, a place of crowns and responsibility, this evolu- 
tionary hypothesis sounds a death knell to human hopes. 
In denying the existence of Hell, a place where sin is 
punished and justice is meted out according to the 
deeds of the flesh, a place where eternal suffering, re- 
morse, and despair obtain, a place where human spirits 
quake and quail before the punishment received, it com- 
pletely outlaws the reign of justice. Such evolution can 


[109] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


do nothing less than deny the existence of Heaven and 
Hell, because it denies the existence of spirit worlds. 
Therefore, eternal rewards are all tabooed. 

Concerning the influence of Organic evolution upon 
the whole of orthodox doctrine, KE. Y. Mullins, President 
of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his 
book, ‘‘Christianity at the Cross Roads,’’ interpreting 
the naturalism of Professor W. H. Wood, Dartmouth 
College, revealed in the latter’s book, ‘‘The Religion of 
Science,’’ says: 


‘‘The supernatural is excluded. 

‘‘The soul is not an independent entity which sur- 
vives death and is immortal. 

‘Man is a higher animal of the order of primates, 
closely related to the Chimpanzee, but with a higher 
degree of mentality. 

‘‘Nature only is immortal in its material elements. 

‘‘Human progress is to be realized by improving 
heredity and by education in social ideals. 

‘“The doctrine of individual salvation leads astray. 
Race preservation is the ideal. 

‘‘A scientist may be religious. But his religion will 
be not emotional but rational. 

‘‘EKvolution conceives God as immanent in nature. 

‘“Nature is everything that is. 

‘Miracles, the inspiration of the Bible, and related 
teachings are false. 

‘‘True religion deals with this world not the next. 
Greater justice, peace, and altruism on earth are the 
true goal.’’ 


To sum up, it has been seen that the Organic evolution- 
ary concept challenges the very heart and structure of 
Supernaturalism. In destroying God it destroys His 


[110] 


Passine oF Curistian DoctrRINE 


word. In destroying His Word, it destroys the doctrines 
contained in it. In the first place, it outlaws the con- 
cept of God a person, a triune being, an Infinite Intelli- 
gence, powerful and loving, who supervises the ways 
and works of the universe. In the second place, it out- 
laws the doctrine of man, a free moral agent, a person- 
ality supernaturally endowed, a creature who by volun- 
tary transgression fell from the holy and happy state in 
which he was created and thus entailed upon his kind 
suffering and death, and a creature who can be redeemed 
by an involutionary process, initiated and effected by an 
Infinite Personality, all-wise and loving. In the third 
place, it outlaws the doctrine of revelations. It main- 
tains that God, granting the existence of deity, could 
not supernaturally reveal Himself. Thus, the revela- 
tions of the Bible with its Christ are delusionary. In 
the fourth place, it denies the inspiration of the Bible 
and asserts that its contents are merely mental illumina- 
tions. And in the fifth place, it outlaws the doctrine of 
eternal pleasure, and suffering, which comes as a reward 
for the deeds done in the body. 

The contrast between religious teaching of Organic 
evolution and orthodox Christianity is indeed very 
significant. 

According to Organic evolution, in the beginning 
natural law. According to orthodox Christianity, in the 
beginning Infinite Life. 

According to Organic evolution, in the beginning acci- 
dental creation. According to orthodox Christianity, in 
the beginning purposed creation. 

According to Organic evolution, from the beginning 


[111] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


human nature infallible. According to orthodox Chris- 
tianity, from the fall human nature depraved. 

According to Organic evolution, from the beginning 
a climbing race. According to orthodox Christianity, 
from the beginning a fallen race. 

According to Organic evolution, from the beginning 
sin a mistake. According to orthodox Christianity, from 
the beginning sin a crime. 

According to Organic evolution, from the beginning 
salvation by culture. According to orthodox Chris- 
tianity, from the beginning salvation by Christ. 

According to Organic evolution, the Cross of Christ 
is a symbol of shame. According to orthodox Chris- 
tianity, the Cross is a symbol of glory. 

According to Organic evolution, death brings extine- 
tion. According to orthodox Christianity, death brings 
endless joy or despair. 

According to Organic evolution, Christ worship is 
enslaving. According to orthodox Christianity, Christ 
worship is saving. 

In the face of the above data, what attitude should 
‘Christians assume toward the challenges of time-honored 
and beloved orthodox doctrines, doctrines which have 
been universally approved and tested in point of time? 
Should orthodox Christians sit idly by and witness aliens 
enter the commonwealth of Israel to do violence to their 
time-honored treasures, to junk the Bible for man-made 
manuals, to turn men away from the greatest reality of 
all the ages, Jesus Christ, the Savior and Lord, to the 
blind and heartless leadings of natural law? Nay, let 
orthodox Christians stand for God, an Infinite Person- 
ality, supreme in intelligence, power, and love! Let 


[112] 


Passtna oF CHristian DocrrRINnE 


them stand for God, a triune Being, an Infinite Father, 
a loving Son, a measureless Comforter! Let them stand 
for the absolute truths which the eternal doctrines of 
the Book of God disclose! 

Shall orthodox Christian doctrine pass from the 
earth? A complete substitution of Organic evolution 
for supernaturalism would mark the death of the im- 
mortal doctrines of the Scriptures. Organic evolution 
and Christianity are two antipodal systems of thought. 
Christianity dies just in proportion as Organic evolu- 
tion lives. Enter Organic evolution, exit Christian 
doctrine! 


[113] 


CHAPTER VI 


Finite Versus the Infinite 


HE passing of Christian doctrine under the influ- 
liars of evolution brings the race face to face with 
the imperative of choice. Admitting its sovereignty, the 
race must choose between itself and an absolute God. 
It must commit its destiny unto finite creatures or unto 
an Infinite Personality. 

Shall the race accept the dictum of Auguste Comte, 
which deifies humanity and bids the race trust itself? 
Or shall it accept the dictum of Jehovah God, which 
proclaims the deity of Christ Jesus and bids the race 
to trust Him? The thoughtful will admit that the 
ultimate state of man must be determined either by the 
potency of finite beings or by the omnipotency of a 
Supreme Being. 

Concerning the ultimate state of man, thinkers uni- 
versally agree that the goal of life is perfection. Nothing 
short of such an ideal satisfies the logic of reason and the 
demands of the human conscience. Is there such an 
ultimate state? Or, is perfection a mythical utopia 
falling entirely beyond the bounds of human experience ? 
In spite of the fact that such a state has hitherto failed 
to obtain among men, the life of the race has been, and 
is, more or less dedicated to the task of realizing it. The 
message of our forbears declares the existence of such 
an Klysia. The voice of our confreres asserts the ex- 


[114] 





Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE 


istence of an ultimate utopia. The witness of our dying 
attests the fact of a home over there. 

Granting the existence of an eternity in which sin, 
mal-adjustments, and suffering are no more, the problem 
at once arises, How may such a state be attained? In 
response to this question, two schools of thought imme- 
diately present answers. 

The first, the naturalistic school, Organic evolution- 
ists, submits that the race can only attain such a state 
through the exercise of its own powers in accordance 
with the laws of nature. It declares that the race in and 
of itself possesses adequate equipment for an ascent unto 
the planes of perfection. It asserts that its energy, 
knowledge, and morality are in themselves adequate 
guarantees for such a climb, and that humanity may, 
with confidence and security, rely completely upon them. 
It contends that perfection is but an end-result of a 
natural process, and that an intelligent yielding to the 
leadings of natural law would ultimately produce a state 
of perfection in the life of the race. 

The second, the supernaturalistic school, submits that 
the race cannot in and of itself realize a state of perfec- 
tion. It declares that humanity is impotent to attain 
such a state; that its energy, knowledge, and morality 
are inadequate dynamics to transplant the race from a 
plane of imperfection to a plane of perfection; and that 
sin in frustrating the function of natural law, renders 
man incapable of maintaining perfect actions. Super- 
naturalists contend that Christ alone can re-make, re- 
motivate, and re-direct the race and in turn guarantee 
its suecessful transit from the world of carnality to the 
world of glorified immortality. Moreover, they insist, 


[115] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


on the one hand, that the gulf existing between imper- 
fection and perfection is humanly impassable since 
human energy and labor are impotent to span it, and 
they insist, on the other hand, that the Cross of Christ 
with its incomparable and inexplicable reaches alone can 
bridge the chasm between these two planes of reality. 

As to the confessions of the two schools, both claim 
power. On the one hand, naturalists, while claiming a 
oreat function for law, hesitatingly admit that man’s 
life and labors universally disclose limitations, and that 
his activities fall far short of perfection. On the other 
hand, supernaturalists assert that God is omnipotent; 
that all power both in Heaven and in earth are His; 
that the astral worlds reside in the palm of his hands; 
and that all of the forces of the universe are directed by 
Him. 

According to the above claims, the strength of the 
one is relative and the strength of the other is absolute. 

As to their confessions, both schools claim knowledge. 
On the one hand, naturalists assert the efficacy of knowl- 
edge. They insist that a dissemination of ethical cul- 
ture would cure human ills. Accordingly, ‘‘ Knowledge 
is virtue.’’ Bacon and many European Encyclopaedists 
sought earnestly to demonstrate the infinity of human 
intelligence. Such efforts culminated in dismal failures, 
and, as a consequence, pansophism was universally dis- 
credited. Thoughtful people regretfully admit the limi- 
tations of human mentations. On the other hand, super- 
naturalists assert the omniscience of God. They insist 
that He is absolute in understanding. To Him the 
achievements of our yesterdays, the activities of our to- 
days, and the eventualities of our tomorrows are all 


[116] 





FInire Versus THE INFINITE 


present. ‘‘He is the same yesterday, today, and for- 
ever.’’ They furthermore, insist that the intelligent 
forms, forces, and functions of the universe root them- 
selves in God; that the whole of these factors disclose 
infinite plans and purposes; that the efficiency of His 
administration is reflected in the perfect functions of the 
heavens; and that the complete unity of all of the many 
activities of the universe is a marvel of His glory. 
According to the above claims, the knowledge of the 
one is relative and the knowledge of the other is absolute. 
As to their confessions, both schools claim loving 
watch-care. On the one hand, naturalists assert that the 
heart of the race manifests itself in child-caring, pro- 
visioning, and protecting activities, and that its other- 
regarding impulses constitute the genetic conditions for 
‘the race’s goodness. A survey of human activities and 
relationships clearly demonstrates that man does not 
love his neighbor as himself, and that he falls far short 
of perfection in his attitudes and activities toward his 
fellow man. The indifference, the vice, the crime, and 
the heartlessness of mankind, everywhere disclosed in 
the life of humanity, indict human nature and compel 
the thoughtful to conclude that the heart of man is 
deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. 
Historically and actually, man is ravishly selfish and 
imperfectly good. On the other hand, supernaturalists 
assert the omnipresence of God. They insist that He 
never wavers in His fidelity toward human creatures, 
and that He watches and ministers eternally unto the 
sons of men. It is confidently asserted that His watch- 
care is so universal and so complete that no tear, no 
anguish, no grief ever exists without His knowledge, and 


[117] 


Can An Evouurionist BE A CHRISTIAN ? 


that no unfortunates are ever denied the ministrations 
of His love and grace. God is absolutely good. 

According to the above claims, the goodness of the 
one is relative and the goodness of the other is absolute. 

While the contrasts between the two schools are defi- 
nite and significant, yet there is a point of agreement. 
Both schools admit that law manifests itself in energy, 
mind, and moral consciousness. They disagree, however, 
as to the ability of these factors to hift man unto the 
plane of perfection. The real issue is: ‘‘Is Homo- 
Sapiens sufficient unto himself? Or is an Infinite Per- 
sonality necessary for human succor?’’ The reader is 
invited to attend carefully the claims of the two schools 
of thought which follow below. 


Is Man Sufficient Unto Himself? 


Can man attain perfection in and of himself? Do 
past experiences, current events, and logic demonstrate © 
the sufficiency of Homo-Sapiens? Does the race possess 
native equipment adequate to guarantee its journey to 
the realm of perfection? What is the race’s equipment 
for such a travel? An inventory shows that humanity 
possesses energy, mind, and morality. Are these mental 
and physical factors sufficient in themselves to lift man 
out of imperfection into perfection? Are these agencies 
of effort adequate to realize a perfect utopia? An 
analysis of man’s native equipment for behavior ought 
to disclose the ability of the race to help itself. 

Admuttedly, man possesses strength. Is it sufficient 
unto itself? Is it commensurate with man’s task? Is it 
capable of lifting man to planes supernal ? 

Three factors witness concerning man’s power to 


[118] 





Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE 


achieve; namely, History, Current Events, and Logic. 

History offers negative evidence. From time imme- 
morial unto this hour, man has deinonstrated his ability 
to do within limits. He has measurably demonstrated 
his power to master and control external forces of 
nature, but he has miserably failed to control himself. 
That history verifies this judgment, no discerning reader 
ean deny. Alexander the Great conquered the world, 
and in turn became a victim of his own passions. 
Napoleon Bonaparte mastered Europe, and in turn be- 
came a victim of his inordinate desire for more power. 
The Hohenzollerns educationally and economically won 
a place in the sun, and in turn became victims of their 
desires to force men to admit it. Thus it ever is, history 
witnesses. 

A survey of human activities shows them to be laden 
with mishap. Human living has been and is a multipli- 
cation of tragedy. Why should the race, knowing its 
weaknesses, trust none other than itself? Why should 
it commit itself, without reference to eternity, to the 
ways of death? Historical data unquestionably disclose 
human energy to be incommensurate with human need. 

Current activities offer negative evidence. The events 
of this hour constitute undeniable evidence of man’s im- 
potency to lift himself out of himself. The regnancy of 
war, of vice, of crime, of race suicide, and of death are 
undeniable witnesses to human weaknesses, and incon- 
testable evidences of man’s imperfection. The voice of 
the present asserts human limitations, and importunes 
the race to look not unto itself for succor. The testimony 
of present-day events denies the power of man to succor 
himself. 


[119] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


Logic also offers negative evidence. It is readily ad- 
mitted that man is potentially equipped for many good ~ 
habits. Yet it must be admitted that he is potentially 
equipped to form many bad ones. This means, of course, 
that man is naturally part good and part bad. Mentally 
speaking, there is just as much psychology for the forma- 
tion and retention of unsocial bonds as there is for the 
formation and retention of ideal-social ones. Logic 
asserts that the nature of man reflects itself in human 
experience and that man can lift himself but to the 
summit of his own strength. Since man is admittedly 
imperfect, he can lift himself but to the summit of his 
own imperfections. Therefore, it follows that if the race 
trust its destiny to itself, then it is destined to tread the 
planes of imperfection forever and ever. 

Admittedly, man possesses knowledge. Is it commen- 
surate with his needs? Can the race through its intel- 
lections, emotions, and volitions, lift itself out of its own 
imperfections? The answer to this question must depend 
upon the nature and the function of knowledge. As just 
observed, the nature of knowledge is conditioned upon 
the nature of man. Since man is an imperfect being, 
any knowledge derived through his imperfect nature 
would manifestly be imperfect. 

Some knowledge is admittedly good, but all knowledge 
is not good. A review of human achievements shows vice 
and crime, intrigue and death, flourishing in every social 
order. 

Some ethics is good, but all ethics is not good. There 
has never been, nor is there today, a rationalistie eulture 
so refined but that the foulest and the basest and the 
srossest deeds obtain in it. 


[120] 





Euntte Versus THE INFINITE 


If man can lift himself to planes supernal by means 
of knowledge or approved human judgments, then why 
not lead the race to commit to memory scientific treatises 
and the Scripture’s decalogue, and in turn conform its 
activities to their idealistic leadings? The answer to the 
question is: Mere knowledge and ethics do not provide 
the motive power necessary to guarantee their transla- 
tion into actuality. The race’s greatest need is not men- 
tation but motivation. Empirically, human knowledge 
is impotent to lift the race out of itself. Accordingly, 
humanity is doomed to tread the imperfect ways of car- 
nality henceforth and forever. 

Admittedly, man possesses morality. Is it sufficient 
unto itself? Is it commensurate with man’s needs? Is 
human nature and human perfection all that the heart of 
man covets? Individual introspections disclose inter- 
esting reactions. To the thoughtful, inward perceptions 
inevitably bring a sense of sham, shame, and emptiness. 
The introspecting individual sees himself rejecting moral 
obligations, spurning altruistic motives, ignoring oppor- 
tunities to scatter sunshine, impugning the purposes of 
his fellow man, refusing to love his neighbor as himself, 
reversing moral codes by instructing youths to do others 
before they do them, and indulging in hate, strife, envy, 
jealousy, suspicion, wars, and race suicide. Empirically, 
the race demonstrates its moral impotence. Its tabooes 
and sanctions reflect the imperfections of their makers. 
Accordingly, the race trusting its own morality, is 
doomed to travel the alluring and tragic pathways of 
selfishness and death. 

Now, experience shows that man’s energy, mind, and 
morality are impotent in their liftings and inadequate 


[121] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


in their leadings to bring man unto the planes of per- 
fection. Thus, is it not reasonable to conclude that man 
is insufficient unto himself and that human activities are 
limited by carnal nature to the planes of imperfection ? 

But, evolutionists obtrude an objection here. They 
insist that since man is a learning creature, he could be 
led to taboo unsocial activities and to sanction only ideal- 
social ones. They insist that through such a process he 
could attain in point of time a state of perfection. But, 
do facts belie their contentions ? 

Relative to these claims, the first embarrassing situa- 
tion which Organic evolutionists face is, that knowledge 
has hitherto failed to demonstrate its saving potency. 
The illustration of this statement is disclosed in the 
following: According to evolutionary contentions, hun- 
dreds of thousands of years have looked down upon the 
learning process of human beings. Granting that the 
race is potentially equipped to eliminate the unsocial 
and to approve the ideal-social, would it not be reason- 
able to expect the race, after such millenniums of expe- 
rience, to stand today emasculated of its weaknesses, and 
complete in its mental achievements and in its moral 
controls? If the natural leading of knowledge is toward 
perfection, would it not be reasonable to expect an in- 
crease of knowledge to mean a corresponding decrease in 
human weaknesses? Moreover, would not an increase 
in the ideational content of the race tend to purge human 
nature of its unsocial aspects? But what do the idea- 
tional increases disclose? Perfection? No! Universal 
love? No! Eternal peace? No! This day discloses 
vice and crime, murder and intrigue, greed and graft, 
envy and hate, suspicion and doubt, deviltry and death 


[122] 


FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE 


everywhere regnant. But few times during the history 
of humanity has the life of a human being been worth 
so little, or law so completely irreverenced. In the light 
of these facts, what can men say for the redemptive role 
of knowledge? If knowledge is redemptive, how can 
thinking people avoid concluding that human beings are 
universally mighty dull creatures? Human experience 
manifestly belies a redemptive role for knowledge. 

Relative to the above claims, the second embarrassing 
situation which Organic evolutionists face is, that knowl- 
edge cannot succor. As previously observed, all knowl- 
edge reflects the nature of its creator. Since man is 
admittedly an imperfect creature, any knowledge derived 
through his experience would reflect his own imperfec- 
tions. Hence, man through his own knowledge could 
lift himself but as high as himself. Scientifically speak- 

ing, knowledge would thus appear to be impotent to 
“succor. 

According to actual human experience, does not race 
history affirm this? Does not our own age, the wisest 
one in all of the annals of history, disclose the basest 
and the foulest deeds ever known to man? Are not the 
events of the World War incontrovertible witnesses to 
the impotency of knowledge to succor? In the light of 
facts, Organic evolutionists must admit that knowledge 
cannot succor the race. 

Science also affirms the conclusion that race activities 
are limited to the planes of its own nature. According 
to laboratory findings, a body will lie in the same posi- 
tion forever unless operated upon by forces external to 
it. Again, a moving object will go on in the same direc- 
tion forever unless operated upon by a force or forces 


[123] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


extrinsic to it. It logically follows that any change in its 
direction would not be due to forces resident in the 
moving object, but to forces extrinsic to it. Again, 
science claims that like begets like. If so, the best that 
could possibly come out of an imperfect race is an im- 
perfect progeny, and the best that could come out of an 
imperfect progeny is an imperfect destiny. Granting 
man’s imperfection, science must conclude that the 
destiny and the doom of the race in and of itself is an 
eternity of chaos and night. 

The above findings do not license Organic evolution- 
ists to say, ‘‘Let man help himself. Let him lft himself 
by his own bootstraps.’’ Granting the existence of an 
Infinite Personality, does it not appear that man is un- 
wise in rejecting Him and in committing himself unto 
the ways of self? Reader friend, lift up your eyes and 
witness an age-long drama, a panorama tragic and dis- 
appointing. The race universally dissipates its energies, 
misapplies its intelligence, and consumes its morality. 
Its impotence is universally limned against the horizon 
of human experience. You have but to lift your eyes to 
behold the race, bathed in tears, baptized in anguish, and 
bivouacked in grief. Is there no escape from such a 
living tragedy? Is man doomed to die in his own 
misery? Is there no way to wipe his tears, to allay his 
anguish, and to assuage his grief? ‘‘Is there no balm 
in Gilead?’’ Do you not admit, Reader friend, if man’s 
succor is absolutely resident in himself, that the race is 
doomed to perpetual tears, anguish, and grief? What 
a commentary upon the function and fruitage of natural 
law! Think of it! A race doomed to eternal misery, 
undying despair, moral dearth, everlasting death! If 


[124] 


FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE 


energy, mind, and morality fail to succor, if experience 
demonstrates the impotency of the race to lift itself 
out of imperfection into perfection, and if all things 
earthly and human fail, then what? Obviously, man’s 
only alternative is to invoke Heaven? 


Judgment of Reason, Conscience, and Heart 


Is an Absolute Personality—infinite energy, absolute 
knowledge, and perfect conscience—necessary to lead 
the race unto perfection? Does not human weakness 
importune help? As the babe importunes guidance and 
succor at the hands of one who can, does not even so the 
race? The mental, moral, and spiritual urges of hu- 
manity seek liberation. The mind cries out for release, 
the heart for deliverance, and the soul for succor. In 
some way or another, humanity perpetually importunes 
deliverance and longs for a dwelling place on high. 

As previously seen, the race confesses the inadequacy 
of its power, knowledge, and moral consciousness to guar- 
antee the realization of perfection. It thus follows that 
if humanity is ever to dwell in Beulah’s land, that such 
a supernal existence must be guaranteed by a power, 
mind, and conscience which transcends its own. Ob- 
viously then, the realization of race succor can only be 
guaranteed by the work of an Infinite Personality. Thus, 
God in man is the hope of the world. 

This conclusion is attested by three witnesses ; namely, 
Reason, Conscience, and Heart. 

In the first place, Reason insists that the existence of 
an Absolute Personality is writ in the very nature of the 
universe. It declares that order implies the existence of 
an orderer; that designs imply the existence of a de- 


[125] 


Can An Evouvutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


signer; that plans imply the existence of a planner; and 
that blue prints imply the existence of an architect. It 
further insists that if order, designs, plans, and blue 
prints exist which could not have been made by man, 
that such planful forms must have been made by a 
Transcendent Being; hence, the order, the designs, the 
plans, and the blue prints of the universe imply the 
existence of an Infinite God. 

In the second place, Conscience insists that the exis- 
tence of an Infinite Personality is essential to guarantee 
justice. It points out that the life of the race has been 
a floundering one; that its walk has been a law-breaking 
one; and that its pathway has ever been marked by in- 
justice. Conscience contends that these floundering and 
law-breaking activities have produced oppression, repres- 
sion, and suppression, and that as a consequence injus- 
tice has marked the footsteps of men. | 

It persistently maintains that there must be two eter- 
nities, the one as a reward for virtue, and the other as a 
reward for vice. Moreover, it insists that right and 
wrong cannot have the same rewards. Obviously then, 
if you sow vice you will reap vice; if you sow virtue you 
will reap virtue; if you sow crime you will reap crime; 
if you sow godlessness you will reap godlessness; if you 
sow righteousness you will reap righteousness. Now, 
according to this law of the harvest, vice and virtue can- 
not have the same rewards. 

Conscience maintains that for justice to reign su- 
premely, rewards must be judiciously and meritoriously 
bestowed. Now, since man is unquestionably imperfect, 
it follows that there must be an Infinite Arbiter to 
righteously adjudge and dispense rewards. Conscience 


[126] 


Finite VERSUS THE INFINITE 


asserts that Christ absolutely satisfied the demand of 
justice on the Cross. He suffered the just for the unjust 
that the demand of law might be eternally satisfied. 
Conscience insists that such a vicarious offering was 
necessary in order to guarantee the reign of justice. In 
bearing in His body the sins of the world, He atoned for 
all sins. Hence, it concludes that an Infinite God alone 
could guarantee the reign of justice among men. 

In the third place, the Heart insists that the existence 
of an Infinite Personality is necessary in order to guar- 
antee mercy. As above seen, the Conscience asserts that 
sin must be punished in order to satisfy justice. Now, 
the Heart declares that man must forgive in order to 
satisfy mercy. Law, on the one hand, clamors for jus- 
tice, while Heart, on the other hand, clamors for mercy. 
The facts are that a vicarious offering to satisfy justice 
was necessary and antecedent to the establishment of 
mercy; that a substitutionary atonement paved the way 
for the execution of merey; and that it is only through 
the execution of mercy that the race is able to escape the 
fetters of injustice. In short, it takes mercy to make 
law just and justice to guarantee mercy. God, seeing, 
the sham, shame, emptiness, hypocrisy, and injustice of 
humanity, put on flesh, bared His heart, received the 
sword thrust of sin, and died on Calvary in order to 
satisfy eternally the demands of justice and make for- 
ever a way for the absolute claims of mercy. Thus, 
through satisfying justice he shuts the gates of Hell, 
and through satisfying mercy He opens the gates of 
Heaven. The Heart declares that the life and labors 
of such an Infinite Personality is necessary in order to 
lft man out of himself, and to environ the redeemed 


[127] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


with the solaces of love. It thus appears that it takes the 
sacrifice of infinite love, to bring the alienated heart of 
man and the loving soul of God into unison and fellow- 
ship. Thus, the heart asserts that an Infinite Person- 
ality is necessary for the atonement. 

The above study discloses Reason, Conscience, and 
Heart demanding the existence of an Infinite Personality 
in order to satisfy the needs and existing facts of life. 
Infinite Personality is antecedent to finite people. Since 
God’s power is greater than man’s, it is only through His 
omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence that the 
race finds a guarantee for its succor. Thus, a state of 
perfection can be realized, not by law, but by Infinite 
Life. 


Sufficiency of Homo-Christus 

The author at this time desires to introduce his friend, 
Homo-Christus, to the reader of these lines. It has been 
observed that Mind, Heart, and Conscience insist that 
there must be one who possesses infinite power, knowl- 
edge, and love. These demands are all satisfied by the 
personality of Jesus Christ. He satisfies every rightful 
claim of life. 

Does the race need power? Christ possesses it. In 
Him all things consist or hold together. It is He who 
controls the heavens, determines the lines of its activities, 
and swings heavenly bodies through infinite space along 
countless paths. It is He who fixes their goings, estab- 
lishes their relationships, and determines their functions. 
In fact, all power, both in heaven and earth, are His, 
He is the omnipotent God in the flesh. 

Does the race need mind? He possesses it. He is all- 


[128] 


FINITE VERSUS THE INFINITE 


wise. All things are present to Him. Every impulse, 
every thought, and every act of our yesterdays, our to- 
days, and our tomorrows are now with Him. He knows 
all. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. By 
virtue of His knowledge, He is intellectually elite, the 
first citizen of the universe. He is the ommscient God 
im the flesh. 

Does the race need care and guidance? He guarantees 
it. He is all love and watch-care. No sparrow falls from 
the heavens that His all-seeing eye does not observe. 
No hair upon the head is unnumbered. He sees; He 
saves; He serves. He is the faithful watchman of eter- 
nity. He environs the race with winged creatures by 
day and by night. He supples the physical needs of 
the race out of His bounty. He supports the race with 
His blood and strength. He is the omnipresent God in 
the flesh. 

Christ, in satisfying the demands of the intellect, in 
satisfying the decrees of the conscience, and in satisfying 
the importunities of the heart, provides for the race 
eternal joy, peace, and rest. Thus, it appears that 
Homo-Christus possesses the power necessary to trans- 
form the race, and in turn translate its imperfections 
into perfections. ‘‘When this mortal shall have put on 
immortality and this corruptible shall have put on in- 
corruption then shall come to pass the saying that is 
written, Death is swallowed up in victory.’’ The Apostle 
Paul discloses Christ as our sufficiency, and declares that 
it is through Him, and Him alone, that the race can 
hope to find succor and salvation. 


[129] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


‘All hail the power of Jesus’ name, 
Let angels prostrate fall, 
Bring forth the royal diadem, 
And crown Him Lord of all.’’ 


Since there is a God who thought out the universe, 
who created the astral worlds out of zeros, who hung the 
stars upon nothing, and who bound them together in- 
extricably with lines of invisible and intangible energy, 
such a God in such activities deserves serious considera- 
tion. 

Since there is a God who adorns the universe with in- 
comparable beauty, who combines light rays into rain- 
bows of matchless splendor, and who clothes the flower 
with rosettes of gorgeous hues, such a God in such activi- 
ties deserves complete adoration. 

Since there is a God who gave every planet an indi- 
vidual orbit, who set every star in a panoply of glory, 
who caused every heavenly body to co-operate with every 
other heavenly body in translating the sun’s light into 
the life of man, such a God deserves loving devotion. 

Since there is a God who robbed Heaven of His Son, 
who beheld His suffering among men, and who bared His 
heart to the sword thrust of sin that enslaved mortals 
might escape their chains, such a God in such activities 
deserves absolute trust. 

Since there is a God who commandeered the hosts of 
Heaven, who trained the choral society of the skies, and 
who placed the heavenly singers at the gates eternal to 
sing well-done plaudits to the redeemed among men, such 
a God in such a role deserves absolute devotion, adora- 
tion, trust, and worship. 


[130] 


CHAPTER VII 
Christ a Fact or Fancy 


N the concluding section of the preceding chapter, 

the author presented Christ Jesus in the role of 
satisfying the claims of absolute power, understanding, 
and love. Does such a role misrepresent facts? Were 
the claims made for Him fanciful or factual? What 
think ye of Christ? 

In response to the last question, two present-day 
schools of thought aforetime mentioned submit answers. 
The naturalistic school, championed by evolutionists, 
maintains that Christ is but a man. The supernatural- 
istic school, championed by orthodox Christians, con- 
tends that Christ is the God-man. To the first, such a 
Christ is nothing more than a mental figment or a mere 
fancy. To the second, such a Christ sums up absolute 
reality. The first asserts that such a Christ would inter- 
fere with the harmonious functions of natural law. The 
second asserts that such a Christ is necessary to guaran- 
tee the harmonious functions of all law. 

Facing the above claims, the earnest seeker-after- 
truth asks, ‘‘ What is the truth of the matter? Is Christ, 
the God-man, a fact or a fanecy?’’ In order to satisfy 
the enquirer, it becomes necessary to survey the evidence 
submitted in support of the different claims by each 
school of thought. 


Christ a Fancy 
The naturalistic school submits the following argu- 


[131] 


Can An Evoxutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


ments in support of its claim that Christ, the God-man, 
is but a fancy. 
First, naturalists contend that the God-man is un- 


necessary. The reason for this contention grows out of | 


the premise that law alone creates, controls, and crowns. 

As to creation, disciples of naturalism, Organic evolu- 
tionists, maintain that the forms, forces, and functions 
appearing in the life of the universe are but end-results 
of nature’s selective processes and that humanity climax- 
ing an almost interminable series of mutations is but an 
end-result of natural selection—mental, physical, and 
spiritual powers thus appear as mere evolutions. Grant- 
ing this creative claim, then there is no need for Christ 
to be other than the Son of man. 

As to control, the disciples of naturalism, Organic 
evolutionists, contend that the forms, forces, and func- 
tions of the universe have been evolved under the guid- 
ance of natural law as the supreme governor of the 
universe. Granting this, the role of a supernatural Christ 
would not only become unnecessary but would be an un- 
warranted interference with nature’s processes. Such 
external control, it is declared, would tend to produce 
chaos in the universe and doubt in the minds of orderly 
thinking people. 

These disciples of evolution submit that if nature’s 
processes are selective, and that if the weaker are gradu- 
ally eliminated through struggle, then the natural result 
of such a selective process would be the gradual emer- 
gence and the survival of the fittest. They claim that 
Christ, as a factor of control, was but a man with a 
superior intellect, an intellect whose functions were so 
profound as to enable Him to glean the ethical and re- 


[132] 


——————— a g 


Curist A Fact on Fancy 


ligious messages of the ages, correlate them into a new 
system of religious thought, and organize the same into 
an Ethical Theism for the social amelioration of the race. 
In such activities Christ appeared, not as a deity, but as 
a super-man, not as a miraculous being, but as one with 
super-physical power. 

These disciples of evolution also submit that Christ’s 
words and deeds fell at times into questionable cate- 
gories. Obviously, such mistaken activities would dis- 
qualify Him to be God, and would outlaw absolute lead- 
ership for Him. Accordingly, the race creates its own 
fetters when it surrenders its will to Him who, according 
to the Bible, transformed a cross of shame into a symbol 
of hope and glory. 

These disciples of evolution further submit that if the 
selective processes of nature are upward, that such a role 
-would ultimately realize perfection in man. That being 
true, redemption becomes something that is social, not 
individual. Thus, it appears that salvation roots itself 
not in a single personality but in the life and labors of 
many persons; not in special creation but in the intelli- 
gent learning processes of the race. Hence, Organic 
evolution outlaws the need of an absolute controlling 
Christ. 

As to crowns, the disciples of naturalism, Organic 
evolutionists, insist that beauty, strength, and goodness 
are end-results of natural selection; that natural law 
crowns the vegetable kingdom with fruit and flowers, 
the animal kingdom with sinews and strength, and the 
human kingdom with honor and goodness. Now, if 
beauty, strength, and goodness are end-results of natural 
selection, and direct products of law in function, then 


[133] 


Can An Evouvutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN ? 


Christ, an Infinite Personalitv, living to crown life with 
beauty, strength, and goodness, becomes unnecessary. 
Thus Organic evolution outlaws the need of a crowning 
Christ. 

Now, if the created forms, the controlled forces, and 
the crown functions of the universe are simply natural 
phenomena, then Organic evolutionists are eminently 
right in claiming that Christ, the God-man, is not 
needed. If Christ, our Infinite God, is not needed, then 
His claim to deity becomes a mental figment or intel- 
lectual fancy. Granting law to be creating, controlling, 
and crowning, the thoughtful will all agree that a super- 
natural Christ is unnecessary. 

Second, Organic evolutionists maintain that a role for 
the God-man would be a positive interference with the 
processes of the universe. Such a contention must be 
eranted if nature’s processes are simply from within to 
without, and never from without to within. Accord- 
ingly, any external influence would manifestly be a 
hindrance to nature’s unfolding. 


‘‘No influence that works in opposition to this de- 
velopment (that of original nature) and to the law of the 
inheritance of racial traits in order can ever reach a 
suitable adaptation, but only disturbs the natural course 
of development, and creates abnormal, misdirected en- 
deavor.’’ (Schneider, ’82, p. 489.) 


Thus it would follow, since the primary role of the 
God-man is from without to within, that any activity 
upon His part would manifestly hinder nature’s proc- 


[134] 


Curist A Fact orn Fancy 


esses. Accordingly, such a role for Christ becomes not 
only unnecessary but an impossible one. 

Accepting the premise of naturalists, Organic evolu- 
tionists, supernaturalists admit that their conclusions 
are true. As a student of this problem, the author 
insists that their premise is a non-demonstrable one; 
that it has hitherto eluded all demonstration; and that 
an individual at this time can with reason and without 
fear of successful contradiction, openly and aboveboard 
declare the Organic evolutionary hypothesis to be an 
ultra-scientific doctrine. If this is true, and true it un- 
questionably is, then the naturalistic school offers only 
inferences in support of its contention. Tested data is 
conspicuously absent. The author believes that it is not 
enough to declare, the school must supply. Evidence 
must be actual; that is, it must be present and inclusive. 


Christ a Fact 

The disciples of supernaturalism insist that, accord- 
ing to empiricism and scientific data, the fact of Christ, 
the God-man, is inescapable. These thinkers are not 
content to deal simply with hypotheses or inferences, 
but they insist that the facts for any claim should be 
present and inclusive. 

In support of the doctrine of Christ’s deity, disciples 
of supernaturalism offer a seven-fold witness. They 
introduce the testimony of History, of Literature, of 
Art, of Civilization, of Reason, of Experience, and of 
God. 


Witness of History 


Ancient History attests the deity of Christ. James 
Harvey Robinson, ‘‘ History of Modern HEurope,’’ says: 


[135] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


‘“‘The first Christians looked for the speedy coming of 
Christ before their own generation should pass away. 
Since all were filled with enthusiasm for the Gospel and 
eagerly awaited the last day, they did not feel the need 
of an elaborate constitution. But as time went on the 
Christian communities greatly increased in size, and 
many joined them who had little or none of the original 
fervor and spirituality. It became necessary to develop 
a regular system of church government in order to con- 
trol the erring and expel those who brought disgrace 
upon their religion by notoriously bad conduct.’’ 


In the later stages of ancient history, its pages are 
replete with adoration and worship of Christ as the Son 
of God. The life and labors of the Roman fathers ade- 
quately attest Christ’s deity. These thinkers especially 
contended for the Lordship and Saviorhood of Jesus and 
insisted that the world should commit itself unreservedly 
to the worship of Christ Jesus as the Son of God. St. 
Augustine, perhaps the most noteworthy one of these 
fathers, strongly contended for the deity of the Naza- 
rene. In his confessions, Harvard Classics, Vol. 7, he 
says: 


‘‘The true Mediator, Whom in Thy secret merey Thou 
hast showed to the humble, and sentest, that by His 
example also they might learn that same humility, that 
Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, 
appeared betwixt mortal sinners and the immortal Just 
One; mortal with men, just with God: that because the 
wages of righteousness is life and peace, He might by a 
righteousness conjoined with God make void that death 
of sinners, now made righteous, which he willed to have 
in common with them. Hence He was showed forth to 
holy men of old; that so they, through faith in His 
Passion to come, as we through faith of it passed, might 


[136] 


Curist A Fact on Fancy 


be saved. For as Man, He was a Mediator; but as the 
Word, not in the middle between God and man, because 
equal to God, and God with God, and together one God. 

‘How hast Thou loved us, good Father, who sparedst 
not Thine only Son, but deliveredst Him up for us un- 
godly! How hast Thou loved us, for whom He that 
thought it no robbery to be equal with Thee, was made 
subject even to the death of the cross, He alone, free 
among the dead, having power to lay down his life, and 
power to take it again. For us to Thee both Victor and 
Victim, and therefore Victor, because the Victim; for us 
to Thee Priest and Sacrifice, and therefore Priest because 
the Sacrifice; making us to Thee, of servants, sons, by 
being born of Thee, and serving us. Well then is my 
hope strong in Him, that Thou wilt heal all my infirmi- 
ties, by Him Who sitteth at Thy right hand and maketh 
intercession for us, else should I despair. For many 
and great are my infirmities, many they are, and great; 
but Thy medicine is mightier. We might imagine that 
Thy Word was far from any union with man, and 
despair of ourselves, unless He had been made flesh and 
dwelt among us. 

‘‘Affrighted with my sins and the burden of my 
misery, I had cast in my heart, and had purposed to flee 
to the wilderness: but Thou forbadest me, and strength- 
enedst me, saying, Therefore Christ died for all, that 
they which live may now no longer live unto themselves, 
but unto Him that died for them. See, Lord, I cast my 
care upon Thee, that I may live, and consider wondrous 
things out of Thy law. Thou knowest my unskilfulness, 
and my infirmities; teach me, and heal me. He, Thine 
only Son, in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom 
and knowledge, hath redeemed me with His blood. Let 
not the proud speak evil of me, because I meditate on 
my Ransom, and eat and drink, and communicate it ; and 
poor, desired to be satisfied from Him, amongst those 
that eat and are satisfied, and they shall praise the Lord 
who seek Him.’’ 


[137] 


Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN? 


Constantine’s substitution of Christianity for pagan- 
ism discloses him in a role of exchanging naturalism for 
supernaturalism. In this, he manifestly looked upon 
Christ as more than a man. The verdict of Ancient 
History is that Christ is God in the flesh. 

Mediaeval History attests the deity of Christ. James 
Harvey Robinson, ‘‘ History of Western Europe, describ- 
ing the actions of Clovis who defeated the Alemanni in 
battle says: 


‘‘ Although still a pagan himself, his wife was an 
orthodox Christian convert. In the midst of the conflict, 
as he saw his line giving way, he called upon Jesus Christ 
and pledged himself to be baptized in His name if He 
would help the Franks to victory over their enemies. 
He kept his word and was baptized with three thousand 
of his warriors.’’ 


In both the early and later stages of Mediaevalism, 
ample evidence for His Lordship appears. The accep- 
tance of Christianity by the fierce Teuton hordes marked 
an all-but-universal turning from naturalism to super- 
naturalism. The mediaeval war lord who lifted up a 
cross and said, ‘‘In this sign I conquer,’’ paid homage 
to Christ as Lord. Witness the Crusaders emptying 
mediaeval castles of their inmates, robbing the feudal 
estates of their wealth, turning their backs upon their 
homes, and marching long and weary journeys to the 
sacred and hallowed confines of the land of their Lord’s 
sepulcher, that they may defend it against the infidels. 

James Harvey Robinson, ‘‘History of Western 
Europe,’’ represents Urban II as saying: 


‘‘Let the Holy Sepulcher of the Lord our Savior, 
[138] 


Curist A Fact orn Fancy 


which is possessed by unclean nations, especially urge 
you on, and the holy places which they are now treating 
with ignominy and irreverently polluting.’’ 


This excerpt fairly represents the motive actuating 
the leaders of all of the crusades. It is important to 
remember that every crusader was actuated by over- 
mastering desires to protect the grave of Christ, the 
God-man, from the devastations of semi-naturalistic 
worshippers. Mediaeval History unerringly discloses 
adoration and wership of Jesus as the God-man. 

Modern History also attests the deity of Christ. Not- 
withstanding many educators seek to play His deity 
down to the level of human divinity; notwithstanding 
numerous organized efforts seek to revile and to discredit 
Him; and notwithstanding many present day function- 
aries are arrayed against His Saviorhood and Lordship, 
no personality at present so grips the human thought, 
and so dominates, so controls, and so consumes the hu- 
man soul as the personality of Jesus. The directive ac- 
tivities of orthodox worshippers convincingly attest the 
influence of present-day Christian worshippers upon 
Modern History. Facts overwhelmingly attest such a 
role. While modernistic and agnostic thinkers admit, 
with H. G. Wells, that Christ, historically speaking, 
should be placed upon the topmost rung of the ladder, 
yet, orthodox Christians, at present largely controlling 
occidental social orders, consistently claim that the in- 
comparable works of Christ are not products simply of 
a historical personality, a maker of history, or a doer of 
deeds, but that the nature of His activities places Him in 
a class all to Himself. 


[139] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


Witness brief testimonials from some of the world’s 
greatest thinkers. Sir Hall Caine, London, copyrighted 
1923 by Universal Service, says: 


‘‘What Jesus preached he practiced. He was poor, 
He had no home, and no second coat; when He was smit- 
ten He did not smite back; when He was unjustly 
accused He did not defend Himself. 

‘‘He did not attempt to evade His doom. He might 
have escaped death but He died of His own free will and 
believed His death was necessary to save the soul of the 
world. Therefore, He stood silent before the falsest 
charges, the most cowardly condemnation, and the most 
infamous indignities. He yielded up His spirit to the 
Father who gave it without reproach or regret or fear. 

‘‘Great Vanquisher of Death! Great Lover and Re- 
deemer of the Human Soul! To Thee the sick and 
troubled world is looking more than ever now for the 
Light that will help the march of moving Providence 
and the healing of the Almighty Hand.”’ 


Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Baltimore, holder of profes- 
sional and honorary degrees from the Universities of 
Pennsylvania, Washington and Lee, Aberdeen, and 
Edinburgh, for 20 years Professor of Obstetrics and 
Gynecology of Johns Hopkins University, a member of 
at least a dozen learned societies of England, Seotland, 
Ireland, Italy, Germany, Austria, France, and the 
United States, and a master of surgery, declares, Sep- 
tember, 1924, issue of the Sunday School Times: 


‘‘T am sixty-six years old, and have lived all my life 
in close touch with science and scientific men, and with 
all sorts of faiths which I have seen tested out. Thor- 
ough investigation and careful study and personal test- 
ing have brought me to an absolute conviction of the 


[140] 





Curist A Fact orn Fancy 


truth of the Bible record and the belief that the human 
race is incurably sinful apart from the grace of God, 
and that grace, foreshadowed in the Old Testament in 
the communications from God to the forefathers and - 
particularly through the sacrifices, is fully manifested 
in the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of a 
virgin who took our sins upon his sinless body and ful- 
filled all the sacrifices, in expiating them upon the cross. 
The New Testament is God’s perfect record of this fact, 
not man’s word, though written by human agencies by 
God, inbreathed by His Holy Spirit. 

‘‘This belief is not a confession of faith in an ex- 
ternal fact, but something which transforms the life 
through a new spiritual birth and brings with it new 
appetites and offers an entirely different relationship to 
the world. I know this through daily personal expe- 
riences and through the transforming power in the lives 
of numbers of people I have known. 

‘*Christ’s invitation is, as I think I wrote you, ‘Come 
and see’ (First chapter of John); and his promise is, 
‘If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the 
teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from 
myself.’ Surely no science we can cultivate operates on 
any more definite principle than this.’’ 


J. Gresham Machen, D. D., Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature and Greek in Princeton Theological 
Seminary, author of numerous books, says: 


‘‘The Christian view of Jesus is plainly set forth in 
the New Testament. Jesus, according to the New Testa- 
ment, was a supernatural person.’’ 


Many other high lights also openly declare their 
faith in the deity of Jesus Christ. Modern History 
declares that His words and deeds inescapably imply 


[141] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


deity. He is from all eternity and shall be unto all 
eternity the God-man. 

What, then, is the verdict of History? The records 
of man clearly attest Christ’s deity. The verdict of 
History is, Christ is the central, supreme, and superla- 
tive fact of the ages. 


Witness of Literature 

Literature is a consistent purveyor of Christ’s deity. 
Prose ceaselessly spawns the seed of His gospel, the 
power of His life, and the glory of His labors. It is 
literally prolific in its testimony for the deity of Christ. 
Monographs and books, manifold in number, from the 
pens of both laymen and theologians, declare the Savior- 
hood and Lordship of Jesus. These ever assert Him to 
be both the Son of God and the Son of man. Poetry 
successfully outdoes itself in declaring His deity. Take 
its odes, its songs, and its sonnets, the best are sur- 
charged with the idealism of the Master. Longfellow’s 
‘‘Ode to the State’’ is most surely a tribute to Christ. 
The choicest sonnets and songs of this hour have been 
inspired by the singer’s admiration for the character 
and nature of Christ. Doubtless the following lines 


‘* All hail the power of Jesus’ name, 
Let angels prostrate fall, 
Bring forth the royal diadem, 
And crown Him Lord of all.’’ 


are the culmination of all the gropings of song writers 
to express in words the heart of poetry. What, then, 
is the verdict of Literature? Is it not, and that inescap- 


[142] 


CuHrist A Fact on Fancy 


ably so, Christ is the central, supreme, and superlatwe 
fact of the ages? 


Witness of Art 

A survey of Art reveals similar truth. Sculpture in 
its highest and sublimest forms discloses the life and 
labors of Jesus Christ. The works of Michelangelo, 
Donatello, Raphael, and others, reveal the great con- 
cept and character of Christ, controlling and gripping 
their imaginations and impelling them to give concrete 
expression to their Christian ideals. Architecture, 
mediaeval and modern, universally portrays the idealism 
of the Master. The regnancy of His royal life upon the 
thinking of mediaeval and modern builders is ever 
present. Various architectural patterns reveal the fact 
and the influence of Christ. Painting reaches the zenith 
of its glory under the spell of Christ and His message. 
In all the ages, no paintings have been so revered and so 
highly prized as the productions of Michelangelo, 
Donatello, Raphael, Rubens, and Diirer. How explain 
this? There appears to be but one explanation: These 
productions were born of hearts enraptured with Christ 
and inflamed with a great desire to honor Him as the 
Son of God. Music also declares His glory. The most 
sublime harmonies, the most sacred melodies, the most 
soulful strains tend to lead individuals away from them- 
selves and to guide them unto the environs of Infinity. 
In short, the more perfect the harmony, the melody, and 
the rhythm, the more closely individuals approach God. 

What, then, is the verdict of Art? Its forms, its 
patterns, its imagery, and its harmony, all unerringly 


[143] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


declare, Christ is the central, supreme, and superlatwe 
fact of the ages. 


Witness of Civilization 


. Were Civilization to speak to-day, it would bear wit- 
ness to the ethics of Jesus undergirding the highest 
forms of civilization. It would insist that the ideals of 
Jesus experienced by mankind constitute the very warp 
and woof of the best in our social fabric. 

In surveying the life and influence of Jesus, Civiliza- 
tion beholds a drama gigantia. It sees Christ above 
1900 years ago making an unauspicious advent into this 
world. It beholds Him at first as an individual without 
romance, position, or prestige. It views Him as He 
enters upon His task of redemption, and discovers His 
enemies shutting every door in His face. He was an 
unwelcome visitor in the synagogue, an intruder in the 
Sanhedrin, a disturber of the peace in the state, an un- 
welcome servitor in the midst of His own people, and a 
homeless vagrant in the eyes of society. Civilization sees 
the Pharisees outlaw Him, the Sadducees reject Him, 
His kindred spurn Him, society eject Him, and the state 
crucify Him. He was friendless, unwelcome, and re- 
jected. ‘‘He came unto His own and His own received: 
Him not.’’ ‘‘The foxes have holes, the birds of the air 
have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay 
His head.’’ 

But Civilization now beholds His unauspicious advent 
become an epochal one, and the drama gigantia become 
His crown of glory. Civilization sees closed doors rap- 
idly opening to Him; witnesses the gospel truth increas- 
ingly illumining the pathway of men; and beholds the 


[144] 


Curist A Fact orn Fancy 


Galilean triumphantly radiating light, orienting love, 
and giving life unto the sons of men in all the earth. 
It sees His Word coveted and read and appropriated as 
the word of no other being in all the world. It sees 
Him releasing human energies and empowering human 
lives for the battles of life. Finally, it sees Christ con- 
quering, controlling, and crowning. Its verdict is, 
Christ is the central, sworeme, and superlative fact of 
the ages. 


Witness of Reason 

Reason surveys the forms, forces, and functions of the 
universe and beholds intelligent effects everywhere. 
Assuming that the law of cause and effect is an indis- 
putable one, Reason declares that planful facts imply 
the existence of a planful being. Hence, designs and 
plans universally demand the existence of designers and 
planners to explain them. Accordingly, to explain the 
planful forms of the universe in terms of accident, 
chance, or fortuitous variation is an irrational procedure. 
Reason outlaws such an explanation and points out that 
many of these planful forms and activities are such as 
man cannot create. It further insists that the existence 
of planful forms which men cannot create logically com- 
pels the recognition of a Transcendent One who is able 
to create them. Therefore, Reason concludes that back 
of the planful forms, forces, and functions of the uni- 
verse there must be an Infinite Planner; hence the neces- 
sity for recognizing an Infinite Creator. Accordingly, 
the verdict of Reason is, Christ is the central, supreme, 
and superlative fact of the ages. 


[145] 


Can An Evoxutionist Be A CHRIstTIAN ? 


Witness of Experience 


The triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem marked 
a victorious epoch in the life of the Great Commoner. 
The multitudes shouted, ‘‘ ‘Hosanna, Blessed is the 
King who cometh in the name of the Lord!’’’ Since 
that epochal hour, the redeemed have unceasingly 
shouted, ‘‘ ‘Hosanna, Blessed is the King who reigneth 
in the name of the Lord!’’’ Ask trustful Christendom, 
‘¢ “What think ye of Jesus?’’’ It answers, ‘‘ ‘He is the 
Christ, the Son of the living God.’’’ Ask worshipful 
congregations, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’’’ They 
reply, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ”’ 
Ask believing father, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ’’ He 
rephes, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ ”’ 
Ask adoring mother, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of Jesus?’ ”’ 
She exclaims, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living 
God.’’’ Ask faithful brother, ‘‘ ‘What think ye of 
Jesus?’ ’’ He responds, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the Son of 
the living God.’ ’’ Ask constant sister, ‘‘ ‘What think 
ye of Jesus?’’’ She shouts, ‘‘ ‘He is the Rose of Sharon, 
the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and the Morning 
Star, He is the chiefest of ten thousand, all together 
lovely.’ Surely, ‘He is the Christ, the Son of the living 
God.’ ’’ Ask the blood-washed throng from the death 
of Jesus on the Cross until this hour, ‘‘ ‘What think ye 
of Jesus?’ ’’? With one acclaim and with one accord they 
sing: 


‘* “Alas, and did my Savior bleed, 
And did my sovereign die? 
Could He devote that sacred head 
For such a worm as [?’ 


[146] 


Curist A Fact org Fancy 


‘* “Oh, how I love Jesus, 
Oh, how I love Jesus, 
Oh, how I love Jesus, 
Because He first loved me.’ ”’ 


With one voice they conclude, ‘‘ ‘He is the Christ, the 
Son of the living God.’ ’’ To the redeemed of yesterday 
and today, Christ is the marvelous One, the miraculous 
One, the redeeming One vf all the ages. The verdict of 
Experience is, ‘“‘Christ is the central, supreme, and 
superlative fact of the ages.’’ 


Witness of God 


God also bears witness concerning Jesus. The baptism 
of the Master in the Jordan occasioned an Infinite attest 
to the deity of Jesus. The Holy Spirit descended as a 
dove and abode upon Him, and the voice of God from 
the heavens declared, ‘* This is my beloved Son, in whom 
I am well pleased.”’ 

Again, on Mt. Tabor, when Christ was transfigurated 
in the presence of the translated ones, God, in His appro- 
bation of the Son, and in His desire to turn men away 
from naturalism unto supernaturalism, again shouted 
with a loud voice, ‘‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased. Hear ye Him.’’ Hear Him, and not 
men. Hear Him, and not the doctrines of men. Hear 
Him, and not the mental rummagings of men. Hear 
Him! In the mind of God, Christ 1s the central, supreme, 
and superlative fact of the ages. 

CONCLUSION: Having now looked at the infer- 
ences of naturalism and at the witnesses of supernatu- 
ralism, what shall we say? Shall we accept inferences 
which reduce Christ from deity to humanity? Shall we 


[147] 


Can An Evoxutionist Br A CuHristiIAn? 


accept ‘‘It is thought’’; ‘‘It is believed’’; ‘‘It is in- 
ferred’’; ‘‘It is supposed’’; as representing authenti- 
cated data? Do not these terms inescapably imply 
‘‘missing facts?’’ If the conclusions of inference must 
be rejected as unscientific, then what? Why, the only 
alternative left for humanity is to accept the empiric 
evidence submitted by supernaturalists. The author is 
convineed that the witness of the seven is sufficient to 
satisfy the demands of science; the testimony is present 
and inclusive. To him, facts unerringly proclaim the 
deity of Jesus. Hence, Christ is not a fancy but a tran- 
scendent fact. Accordingly, Christ is the central, su- 
preme, and superlative fact of all the ages. 

Surely, such a Christ is deliciously majestic. To stand 
in His presence, to feel the warmth of His personality, 
and to discern the wealth of His love, is to fellowship 
august Truth. But a word from His gracious lips re- 
veals depths to which man cannot dive and heights to 
which he cannot climb. But a note discloses melodies 
wondrously sweet. Being Truth’s exemplar, the Son of 
Righteousness universally woos the erring and the lost 
with melody and song. At first His voice, soft as the 
silvery spray of Toccoa Falls, and as gentle as the honey- 
dew of Hermon, reaches the ear of the anxious enquirer. 
As the tones gradually round out into delightful full- 
ness, the subdued sweetness increases. Fuller and fuller 
become the notes and rounder and rounder become the 
intonations, so that at length every niche and corner 
of the enquirer’s universe is surcharged with incom- 
parable melody. Rhapsodies devour him; aesthetic 
milieu encompasses him; and rhythmic glory consumes 
him. Enraptured and entranced, he witnesses the im- 


[148] 


—— ee ee in 


Curist A Fact on Fancy 


pregnated harmonies recede into a decadence enticing 
and sweet, only to behold them rise again with new 
melodies and added glory. Standing in the midst of art 
resplendent; quaffing anon at fountains of beatific love- 
liness; and feeding ever upon the ‘‘bread of life,’’ the 
enquirer learns at last the glory of righteousness and 
the loveliness of the Redeemer. 

As the king of day, morning by morning, spreads his 
eolden mantle upon the races of men, and unselfishly 
bequeaths his comfort and cheer; as the queen of night, 
evening by evening, rolls back thickening shrouds and 
gloriously floods the human heart with silvery radiance; 
as the Ultima Thule, day by day, traversing illimitable 
reaches, gathers up stray diamond sparkles and pro- 
fusely scatters them upon myriads of night-bound pil- 
erim, even so may Thou, O Friend o’Mine, maker of the 
heavenly luminance, bestow warmth upon the cold, light 
upon the distressed, and guidance upon the lost. 

May Thy sunbeams warm our hearts, may Thy moon- 
beams cheer our souls, and may Thy starlight guide our 
erring lives unto planes of freedom and love. 

Oh, Thou majestic One, teach us to smile when adver- 
sity envelops us with clouds of blackness; teach us to - 
sing when evil ones encompass us with curtains of de- 
spair; teach us to laugh when agents of misfortune chill 
our lingering spirits; and teach us to love when agencies 
of death discomfit us. May Thy benedictions abound in 
the hearts of men ever and anon. May the frontiers of 
Thy influence become the borders of the earth. From the 
frozen fields of Russia to the sun-kissed hills of Italy, 
from the romantic vale of Eden to the sweet-scented 
shamrocks of Emerald’s Isle, from the snow-capped 


[149] 


Can An Evouurtionist Be A CuHristTIan? 


mountains of the Himalayas to the fragrant magnolias 
of America, may the wealth of Thy power, the light of 
Thy understanding, and the measure of Thy love univer- 
sally obtain. To Thee, O majestic One, we turn for 
life, light, and love. 

Dance on, thou daughters of Zion, thou art Eden’s 
best. Sing on, thou sons of Israel, thou art Truth’s 
blest. Hope on, thou children of Elim, thou art Heaven’s 
guest. O, Thou Son of Righteousness, who art from 
everlasting unto everlasting, beam on; let the radiations 
of Thy smiles and the solaces of Thy love eternally begirt 
and environ us! 


[150] 


CHAPTER VIII 


All-But-Boneless Men 


HE ideal, Organic evolution, is a mental pattern 
dae manifestly guides most modern scientists in 
their selection, organization, interpretation, and applica- 
tion of educational methods and content. As previously 
seen, it confessedly pictures a natural unfolding process 
and provides a key for the interpretation of all the 
forms, forces, and functions in the life of the universe. 
To get its significance, one must be able to envisage the 
process represented by Organic evolution. The author 
believes that most natural scientists would agree that 
Organic evolution is a natural process of unfolding from 
within to without, never from without to within; or that 
it is simply a process of natwral change, natural develop- 
ment, and natural progress, all resulting from. selective 
functions of the resident forces of nature. 

The influence of Organic evolution upon modern 
science is large indeed. By it, classroom material is 
selected and evaluated ; by it, classroom methods are un- 
folded and applied; by it, mental and spiritual phenom- 
ena are evolved and measured; and by it, eventualities 
and actualities are fitted and folded into the Organic 
evolutionary mould in order to give them rational inter- 
pretation. Once this mental pattern is accepted, it be- 
comes all-sufficient to explain every detail and process in 
the life of the universe. According to it, every form 
and foree in nature and every material body and ap- 


[151] 


Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? 


proved idea in life are simply evolutions. Every indi- 
vidual and every human institution exist as end-results 
of nature’s unfolding processes. Thus, the home, the 
school, the vocation, the state, and the worship are all 
products of natural and social selection. 

An enquirer asks, ‘‘What are the grounds for assum- 
ing the existence of such an evolutionary process? How 
justify the practice of making all phenomena fit into 
the Organic evolutionary concept in order to give them 
rational interpretation? Is it true that evolution is the 
key which unlocks the hidden secrets of the universe? 
Are life’s processes so simple as to be measured by a 
single mental pattern ?”’ 

In order to answer the enquirer, it will be necessary 
to keep in mind the nature of scientific method and 
content. 

To be brief, scientific method is professedly unbiased, 
unopinionated, open-minded, and discriminating. It is 
predominantly inductive. It diligently applies the acid 
tests of observation, investigation, and experimentation 
in order to discover and verify truth. 

Scientific content is confessedly composed of tested 
and proven data. True science rests upon demonstrated 
facts. A science founded upon ‘‘guesses’’ is a pseudo- 
science. Reason outlaws ‘‘missing facts’’ as inadequate 
foundations for scientific procedure. Science demands 
that facts be present and inclusive. 

Our enquirer obtrudes again and asks, ‘‘Could it be 
that Organic evolution is founded upon ‘missing facts’? 
Or that ‘guesses’ provide the foundation for the evolu- 
tionary hypothesis ?’’ 

To answer these questions impartially, it will be neces- 


[152] 





Auut-But-BoneLess MEn 


sary to survey Organic evolutionary data and witness the 
evidence submitted in support of the theory. A careful 
study of the theory and its influence upon civilization, 
leads to four interesting and significant conclusions: 

(1) Organic evolution falls down in theory. 

(2) Organic evolution falls down in function. 

(8) Organic evolution falls down in fact. 

(4) Organic evolution is ultra-scientific. 


Evolution Falls Down in Theory 


Theoretically, Organic evolution teaches the imfalli- 
bility of human nature. Such a doctrine is inescapable 
since Organic evolution outlaws involutionary processes. 

Granting the educational task of the race to be the 
‘*redirection of instincts,’’ or accepting the evolutionary 
dictum, ‘‘Every impulse is right unless misdirected,”’ 
how account for the misdirection of the first impulse? 

Original nature, being naturally good, could not 
account for it. Physical environments, being imper- 
sonal, could not explain it. Jehovah God, being ab- 
solutely righteous, could not induce it. And Satan, being 
non-existent, according to evolution, could not determine 
it. Now, if the misdirection of the first impulse cannot 
be explained in terms of human nature, nor in terms 
of physical environments, nor in terms of an infinite 
God, nor in terms of an inimicable devil, then how 
account for it? Votaries of nature’s infallibility answer, 
‘‘accidents.”’ 

Now, if the first misdirection of impulse was acci- 
dental, then the resulting response was but a mistake 
and the individual involved was not responsible for the 
deed. Accepting ‘‘accident’’ as an explanation for the 


[153] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


race’s sins, then the evil of the past and of the present 
is not, in and of itself, bad; it is Just so many mistakes ; 
or it is simply the manifestations of ignorance. 

But, votaries of nature’s infallibility might say that 
repeated mistakes could develop a conscience against 
certain types of activities, and that the elements of such 
a conscience would constitute the essence of sin. Accept- 
ing this judgment, sin becomes simply that which the 
mind of man condemns. Thus, there can be no sin until 
man thinks so. Accordingly, evil becomes no more and 
no less than mal-adjustments or mistaken reactions due 
to man’s attempt to mutually adapt himself to his social 
and physical environments; or it is simply what man 
thinks to be wrong. Thus, right and wrong are relative 
and finite. 

Thorndyke reveals the heart of the doctrine when he 
says: 


‘*By the nature-right doctrine, the actual terminus of 
evolution is the moral end of human action. What is 
going to be is right. Our duty is to abstain from inter- 
fering with nature, supposing such an interference to be 
possible. A child should be trained up in the way that 
inner impulse of development leads him to go. The sum- 
mum bonum for the race is to live out its own evolution 
with interest and freedom. No stage to which nature 
impels should by human artifice be either hastened or 
prolonged lest the magic order be disturbed. The ideal 
for humanity is to be sought in its natural outcome in 
which it of itself tends to be, irrespective of training. 
Human effort should be to let inner forces of develop- 
ment do their perfect work.”’ 


[154] 


Auu-But-BonEeLess Men 
Guillet says: 


‘«Since it is the order of nature that the new organism 
should pass through certain developmental stages, it be- 
hooves us to study Nature’s plan, and seek to aid rather 
than to thwart it, for Nature must be right; there is no 
higher criterion.’’ 


As a refutation of the doctrine of nature’s infallibility, 
Thorndyke, while insisting that common sense at once 
opposes the contention that lying, stealing, torturing, 
ignorance, irrational fears, and a hundred weaknesses 
and vices are original in man, declares: 


‘‘The imperfections and misleadings of original nature 
are, in fact, many and momentous. The common good 
requires that each child learn countless new lessons and 
unlearn a large fraction of its natural birthright.’’ 


Thorndyke is manifestly right. To assume that the 
race is naturally good is to face at once the enigma of 
explaining away human activities which universally be- 
lie such a thesis. There are literally hundreds of human 
activities which find no adequate explanation apart from 
the fact that human nature is originally and actually 
imperfect. Human nature must be guided in its native 
development because its innate equipment reflects evil 
tendencies. Every impulse of man is not right. 

Theoretically, Organic evolution teaches gradual and 
unlimited change. Accordingly, all of the forms of the 
universe have passed or are passing through transforma- 
tions due to the gradual changes wrought out by nature’s 
selective processes. Moreover, all of the species extant 
are end-results of the transmutation of lower into higher 


[155] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHrIstTIAn? 


forms. Organic evolutionists have long asserted that 
existing life forms have been wrought out by natural 
selections through its endless mutations, and that 
through these processes all existing orders have been 
evolved. } 

The present day bearing of Mendelianism, a univer- 
sally accepted doctrine, upon the evolutionary theory is 
indeed significant. The Mendelian doctrine, long offered 
in support of the evolutionary hypothesis, negates com- 
pletely the gradual and indefinite change theory. In- 
stead of teaching infinite plasticity, it teaches fixity and 
rigidity. Instead of teaching unlimited development, 
it teaches development within limits. Instead of teaching 
endless gradual creations, it teaches specific and definite 
creations. At present, Mendelianism is one of the great- 
est scientific obstacles in the way of the evolutionary 
hypothesis. 

It should be remembered that if Organic evolution is 
to stand up in theory, function, or fact, the transmuta- 
tions of species must be demonstrated. Without its 
demonstration, all evolutionary claims fall flat. 


Evolution Falls Down in Function 


If Organic evolution falls down in theory, would it 
not be reasonable to expect it to fall down in function? 
The important issue before us is: Does Organic evolution 
work? Does it actually work itself out in human expe- 
rience for human well-being? Does it measure up to the 
pragmatic test? If the doctrine of evolution is to be 
justified, its influence upon society must be positive and 
wholesome. In short, if it is right in function, the in- 
fluence of its teaching should tend to make the race 


[156] 





Aut-But-BonELEss MEN 


purer, better, happier, and more altruistic. Does human 
history disclose Organic evolution in such a role? If 
the author has rightly surveyed its influence and its 
tendencies, it is safe to assert that it is morally and 
spiritually enervating. 

Instead of purer lives obtaining under the influence 
of Organic evolutionary teaching, the present witnesses 
a great increase in vice. lLibertinism is increasingly 
sanctioned by humanity. The home moves steadily 
toward legalized promiscuity. Divorces are becoming 
moral cancers in the body of civilization. It is safe to 
say that under the selfward teachings of Organic evolu- 
tion the tendency to break down sex conventions in- 
‘ereases in arithmetical ratios and the habit of illegiti- 
mately gratifying sex impulses increases in geometrical 
ratios. 

Instead of increasingly producing men and women 
whose word is their bond, whose integrity is their secur- 
ity, and whose fidelity is universally unfailing, it has 
tended to encourage looseness in morals, laxness in ful- 
filing obligations, and liberty in substituting privilege 
for principles. Under the impact of the evolutionary 
suggestion, ‘‘ Help thyself,’’ the race has tended to take 
it literally and as a result men and women are becoming 
more and more self-centered and sufficient unto them- 
selves. 

Instead of producing happiness, the influence of Or- 
ganic evolutionary teaching tends to create suspicion, 
doubt, graft, greed, intrigue, and other forms of unsocial 
activities. It tends to produce discontentment, unrest, 
and chaos. Under the impact of its logic, the world, 


[157] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


during the World War, was brought to a grief hitherto 
unequalled in the annals of human activities. 

Instead of altruism, Organic evolutionary teaching 
tends to produce egoism. Under such teaching mankind 
increasingly looks to itself for aid and succor. In 
causing the race to think increasingly for, around, and 
unto itself, Organic evolution encourages self-interest 
and self-activities. Now, Psychology maintains that the 
exercise of a function strengthens the function. If the 
race exercises itself in self-ward activities, it manifestly 
increases its own selfishness. Hence, such evolution 
maximizes egoism and minimizes altruism. 

In conclusion, it may be said that egoistic knowledge, 
egoistic ideals, and egoistic activities are inescapably un- 
social in their influence. Organic evolutionary teaching 
tends to produce a morality undergirded with prudential 
ethics, and just in proportion as civilization rests upon 
such ethies does the ideal of force and sham guide human 
beings in their mundane activities. Such evolutionary 
doctrine has been and is one of the world’s greatest 
influences in exalting force as a means of progress, and 
in the light of late experiences it has been a means of 
bringing the world to its greatest grief. 

In fact, Organic evolution in its self-ward teachings 
has made large contributions towards the present-day 
drifts in social orders. By encouraging self-ward 
aspirations and activities, it has promoted educational, 
social, political, and religious drifts. Educationally, the 
tendency has been away from God to nature. Socially, 
it has been away from tested and proven conventions to 
social inconoclasm. Politically, it has been away from 


[158] 


Aut-But-Bonge.ess Men 


sanity toward selfishnes. And, religiously, it has been 
away from Christ to man. 


Evolution Falls Down in Fact 


A survey of the developments of human experience 
and the findings of modern research ought to reveal the 
factual basis of Organic evolution. Unquestioned facts 
to support its claims ought to be present and conclusive. 
It will be found, however, that different aspects of Or- 
ganic evolution rest largely upon inference. 

Evidence for spontaneous generation is mferential. 
Spontaneous generation is a basic principle of Organic 
evolution. Apart from it, such philosophy has no way 
of explaining the origin of life. If it is not a fact, then 
Organic evolution rests upon inferences or guesses. 

In the lght of scientific procedure, is spontaneous 
generation demonstrable? Is evidence for its role to be 
observed, investigated, and experimented with? Apply- 
ing the steps of scientific procedure, can Organic evolu- 
tionists demonstrate the sun’s rays to be life-quickening 
in their power? No! Can they demonstrate that acci- 
dental combination of chemicals suddenly produced life 
aeons ago? No! Can they demonstrate that ‘‘millions 
of years ago the great wonder happened and the dead 
gave birth to life and the first living floated upon the 
waters of the sea?’’ No! Can they demonstrate one 
instance wherein natural law acting upon dead matter 
produced life? No! Accordingly, spontaneous genera- 
tion rests upon ‘‘missing facts,’’ or inference, and, as a 
consequence, must be rejected. 

Evidence for unlimited variation is inferential. Un- 
limited variation is the differentiatng role of natural 


[159] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


selection. Its role is not limited to a species but to 
organic life. Accordingly, one species transmutes into 
another, the lower into the higher, and on and on, so 
that out of the gradual and transmuting process all of 
the various forms of the vegetable, the animal, and the 
human kingdom have been evolved. All would agree 
that this is a specious doctrine, but is it true? Do facts 
verify it? In this study it should not be overlooked that 
structural changes do not constitute transmutations. 

Organic evolutionists, in contending for unlimited 
variations in which transmutations are supposed to 
occur, face insuperable obstacles. The first obstacle is 
that hybrids are or tend to be sterile. This is true both 
in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. In the animal 
kingdom, the mule, a cross between the horse and the ass, 
cannot perpetuate its kind. So far as science knows, no 
such hybrid in the animal series can do so. In the vege- 
table kingdom, certain hybrid products are incapable of 
reproducing themselves through seed. Hence, nurserymen 
perpetuate in kind through assexual processes (graft- 
ing) rather than sexual-self-fertilization. The signifi- 
eance of hybrids now appears. As the fringes of the 
species become hybrids, sterility appears. Accordingly, 
there is variation within limits, and not unlimited varia- 
tion. Of course, it follows that if unlimited variation is 
discredited by facts, transmutation of species must be 
abandoned. Hybrids outlaw unlimited variation. 

The second obstacle in the way of unlimited variation 
is Mendelianism. As previously seen, the Mendelian 
ratio teaches that germ plasm varies within limits; that 
is, it teaches rigidity rather than unlimited plasticity. 

The third obstacle in the way of unlimited variation 


[160] 





Aut-But-Bong.Less Men 


is, ‘‘ Like begets like.’’ Accordingly, each species brings 
forth only after its kind. Human experience shows this 
to be true. The fly begets flies. The gnat begets gnats. 
The bat begets bats. The dog begets dogs. The dove 
begets doves. The owl begets owls. The man begets 
men. This is universal and invariable. So far as ex- 
perience goes, all the people in all the world in all time 
have not been able to offer one instance wherein one 
specie brought forth other than its kinds. Empirically, 
‘‘Hike begets like.’’ 

According to the above facts, sterility, rigidity, and 
‘*Like begets like’’ discredit unlimited variation and in 
doing so, they outlaw the doctrine of the transmutation 
of the species. 

With this judgment, Dr. Etheridge, fossilologist, 
British Museum concurs. He says: 


‘*In all this great institution, there is not a particle 
of evidence of the transmutation of the species.’’ 


Evidence for the survival of the fittest is inferential. 
The survival of the fittest is the end-result of the endless 
struggle in nature. Through the process of ‘‘lke be- 
getting unlike,’’ evolutions from lower to higher forms 
are supposed to take place. If lower forms of life 
mutate into higher ones, struggle between the two imme- 
diately ensues. The lower and the higher struggle for 
sustenance and privilege. The higher form is supposed 
to win. Accordingly, the fittest survives. 

Do the fittest forms always survive? The answer to 
this question obviously involves the meaning attached to 
the ‘‘fittest.’’ What are the fittest forms? Are they the 


[161] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


ones which win in struggle? Or are they the ones caleu- 
lated to contribute the most to life? 

Archeology shows that many of the most physically 
perfect animals have perished. Fossils of mammoths, 
saber-toothed tigers, and wolves, showing physical finish 
which greatly eclipses present-day ones, are to be found 
in the world’s museums. Archeology shows that the fit- 
test physically among men have not always survived. 
The Cro-Magnon race undoubtedly represents the finest 
physical and mental specimens of the past, yet it is not 
known that it has any direct offspring among men. 

Zoology shows that mice and rabbits, veritable pests 
and incurably cowardly, continue to increase. English 
sparrows, nothing more than winged pests, are multi- 
plying geometrically. Zoology not only shows that in- 
ferior types multiply but it further shows that wonder- 
ful animals forms are passing from the earth today. 

History shows that the fittest among men do not al- 
Ways survive. War takes away the superior lives and 
leaves the inferior. The dopesters, the drunkards, the 
rakes, and the bums are left to multiply and replenish the 
earth. History further shows that moral degenerates 
and conscienceless cowards often fill places of honor. By 
tricks, lies, and intrigues they defraud integrity out of 
its rights. The unfit often direct human affairs. 

In the hght of facts, the doctrines of spontaneous 
generation, unlimited variation, and the survival of the 
fittest, most surely lack support. The truth discredits 
them. 

A survey of the actual testimony of organized sciences 
having most to do with the nature and functions of 
Organic evolution must now be made. Such a survey 


[162] 


AuuL-But-Boneuess Men 


compels a review of Biology, Geology, Anthropology, 
and Sociology. 

What does Biology disclose? Darwin’s inductive 
studies, covering many years and wide travel, led to the 
issuance of his ‘‘Origin of the Species.’’ During his 
wide studies, he observed certain series of related facts; 
discovered definite variations in organic forms; dis- 
cerned apparent struggle between species; and then 
concluded that such phenomena pictured an eternity of 
natural strife and gradual change. 

In his ‘‘Origin of the Species,’’ he sets forth the 
following concepts: First, all organic life is in a process 
of natural change; second, all organic changes are grad- 
ual, ranging from the simple to the complex; third, all 
organic forms are in a state of continual struggle, with 
the fittest surviving; fourth, all existing species are cre- 
ated and preserved by natural selection. 

What evidence had Darwin to show that all organic 
life sprang from a single cell, or from multiple pri- 
mordial cells? Had he observed such natural genera- 
tion? No! 

What evidence had he that the first forms of organic 
changes were simply natural and gradual? Had he wit- 
nessed such phenomena in point of time and place? No! 

What evidence had he that all living organisms are in 
a state of continual strife? Did he actually demon- 
strate it? No! 

What evidence had he that species transmute? Had 
he ever witnessed a single transmutation? No! 

Overlooking Darwin’s failure to demonstrate his 
premises, many biological scientists soon accepted his 
new mental pattern. His theory was long, and is widely 


[163] 


Can An Evoxtutionist Bz A CHrIsTIAN ? 


today, accepted by educators as a rational working 
hypothesis. Investigations, especially the remarkable ex- 
periments of Mendel, have caused hard-headed scientists 
to question his doctrine. 

As previously seen, Mendelianism is now universally 
accepted. Instead of teaching organic plasticity and 
oradual change, it teaches rigidity and relative change- 
lessness. Instead of teaching unlimited variation, it 
teaches variation within limits. Instead of teaching 
infinite plasticity, it teaches relative rigidity. It is thus 
seen that this- demonstrable doctrine teaches special 
creation with variation limited to the species. 

Accordingly, the Mendelian ratio discredits Darwin’s 
geradual and unlimited change theory. It supports the 
doctrine, Like begets like, rather than the evolutionary 
doctrine, Like begets like until tt doesn’t. 

Again, as previously seen, sterility and perpetuity of 
species fail to support the gradual change theory of 
Darwinian evolutionists. Now, if rigidity, sterility, and 
perpetuity of species are demonstrable, and these, in 
turn, discredit the transmutation of the species, then 
the assumption that man is simply an evolved animal is 
a groundless one. 

What, then, shall we say concerning Biological evolu- 
tion. There is no escape from the conclusion that it 
rests largely upon flimsy inference. Inadequate data 
forces the conclusion that Biological evolution is founded 
upon ‘‘missing facts.’’ It is to date an untenable and 
ultra-scientifie doctrine. All sincere Biologists will 
agree that Organic evolution, not development, is a non- 
demonstrable theory. The most that can be said for it 
is, it is a@ big guess. 


[164] 





Auut-But-BoneLess Men 


What does Geology show? Exponents of Organic 
evolution often buttress their position with Geological 
evolution. It is a futile analogy. A survey of this field 
shows older Geological scientists exploring the earth’s 
surface, examining its forms, isolating its strata, divid- 
ing the earth’s layers into geologic ages of aeons of dura- 
tion, and concluding that each stratum was slowly and 
gradually evolved. It reveals them assuming that the 
earth’s strata lie one upon the other, the oldest being 
the lowest. 

Now, if this theory is true and is worth anything to 
science, each stratum must disclose definite inorganic 
forms, or organic forms, or cultural forms, or all of these 
forms. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Research Professor of 
Zoology, Columbia University, indicates in ‘*Men of the 
Old Stone Age,’’ many instances where a single stratum 
discloses indefinite and various inanimate, lifeless, and 
cultural forms. 

George McCready Price, Professor of Geology, Union 
College, College View, Nebraska, breaks with the old 
school of Geologists. According to the author’s interpre- 
tation of his ‘‘New Geology,’’ he maintains that the 
prevalence of indefimite and variable life and culture 
forms in a single stratum disrupts the evolutionary 
hypothesis and avers that such indefiniteness and vari- 
ability imply that the earth’s strata have been formed by 
series of sudden convulsions of the earth, and that such 
convulsions account for the existence of various inani- 
mate, lifeless, and cultural forms in the same stratum. 

Thus, the commingling of human, fauna, flora, and 
inanimate forms of different geologic ages in a single 


[165] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


stratum destroys gradual evolution and connotes cat- 
aclysmic development. 

Price’s ‘‘New Geology’’ shows that the gradual evolu- 
tion theory of the older Geologists has broken down. 
Both the Onion and the Biological coat theories are 
exploded by the above data. The above irregularities 
are variously explained by defenders of evolution. It 
must be admitted, however, that such irregularities are 
painfully abundant and universally disturbing. 

According to the latest scientific findings, Geology 
does not demonstrate gradual change in the earth and its 
forms. Accordingly, Geological evolution is a ‘‘pipe 
dream.’’ It is founded upon ‘‘missing facts.”’ 

What does Anthropology reveal? As .a science, it 
divides into two great fields, General and Cultural. The 
one is concerned with the development of the human 
body, and the other with the development of human cul- 
ture. Space will not permit a study of Cultural Anthro- 
pology in this connection. 

Henry Fairfield Osborn, perhaps the most outstanding 
Anthropologist of this age, in his book, ‘‘Men of the Old 
Stone Age,’’ delineates and describes the various pre- 
historic and intermediate races now accepted by modern 
Anthropology. Organic evolution teaches that between 
the ape and modern man there must have been inter- 
mediate races, higher than the ape but lower than pres- 
ent-day human beings. Chief among these hypothetical 
races are the Trinil, the Piltdown, the Heidelberg, and 
the Neanderthal. 

The Trini Race. The actual scientific evidence upon 
which the race is founded is disclosed in Osborn’s ‘‘ Men 
of the Old Stone Age,’’ pages 73-75. He says: 


[166] 


OE SS 


Auu-But-BoneLess Mien 


‘‘On the Bengawan River in Central Java, a Dutch 
army surgeon, EKugene DuBois, had been excavating for 
fossils in the hope of finding prehuman remains. In the 
year 1891 he found near Trinil a deposit of numerous 
mammal bones, including a single upper molar tooth 
which he regarded as that of a new species of ape. On 
- carefully clearing away the rock the top of a skull ap- 
peared at about a meter’s distance from the tooth. Fur- 
ther excavation at the close of the rainy season brought 
to light a second molar tooth and a left thigh-bone about 
15 meters from the spot where the skull was found, im- 
bedded and fossilized in the same manner. These scat- 
tered parts were described by DuBois in 1894 as the type 
of Pithecanthropus Erectus, a term signifying the up- 
right-standing ape-man. * * * Although far advanced 
in the course of differentiation, this Pleistocene form 
had not yet attained to the human type. Pithecanthro- 
pus Erectus is the transition form between man and the 
anthropoids which the laws of evolution teach us must 
have existed. He is the ancestor of man.”’ 


J. Arthur Thomson, Professor of Natural History, 
University of Aberdeen, in his text, ‘‘What is Man?”’ 
agrees essentially with Osborn’s record of the Trinil 
race. The only difference in their reports being, he says 
three teeth where Osborn names but two. 

Osborn’s statement holds a three-fold interest for the 
reader: First, it is interesting because of the motive it 
reveals. Mr. DuBois desired to find pre-human remains, 
In short, he was looking for the missing link. Second, 
it is interesting because of the bones it reveals. Two 
teeth, top of a skull, and left thigh bone are disclosed. 
None of these are found together, and the last two were 
discovered nearly 50 feet away from the first two. Js 1t 
not extremely interesting to observe that out of the 206 


[167] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


bones in the human body, the reader witnesses less than 
one-fiftieth of them. 

In comparing the number of bones found with the 
number in the human body, it will be seen that there 
were just 202 out of 206 bones missing. That’s all! Mr. 
DuBois had less than two per cent of the bones of the 
human body out of which to constitute a new race. By 
means of many giant stretches of his imagination he 
mentally fabricated the ‘‘missing link,’’ for which he 
was looking, and with equal skill foisted his newly 
created all-but-boneless race upon awaiting zealots and 
undiscriminating students. 

Third, it is interesting because it reveals an all-but- 
boneless race. To the stickler-for-facts or the seeker- 
after-truth, the creation of a race out of 98 per cent 
missing facts is but little short of scientific suicide. 

Some would protest this presentation of the case by 
declaring that Mr. DuBois was in possession of certain 
norms or formulae by which he fabricated Pithecan- 
thropus Erectus. Our hard-headed enquirer admits such 
a role for norms in imaginative functions, but he insists 
that many activities have been futile because they have 
been guided by false standards. He points out the fact 


that Ptolemy’s ‘‘Geocentrism’’ was accepted for ages 


as scientific, but that it lingers today only as a memento 
of an unscientific past. He wants to know where the 
other 202 bones are. They are the missing facts which 
concern him. 

What is the meaning of all this? Must we conclude 
that the “‘missing link’’ is synonymous with missing 
facts? Have we any other alternative? It is of interest 
to note that a commission was reliably reported to have 


[168] 





Aut-But-BonELeEss MEN 


been formed in 1920 to spend $250,000.00 in Java for the 
purpose of finding some more bones. It is admitted 
there 1s room for some more bones to be added to the 
meager Pithecanthropi stock. The Pithecanthropic race, 
on the basis of scientific fact, is all-but-boneless. 

The Piltdown Race. This race is known as the ‘‘ Dawn 
man,’’ or EKoanthropus. Osborn states, pages 132-34: 


‘*Several years ago Dawson discovered a small portion 
of an unusually thick human parietal bone, taken from 
a gravel bed which was being dug for road-making pur- 
poses on a farm close to Piltdown Common. In the 
Autumn of 1911, he picked up among the rain-washed 
spoil-heaps of the same gravel-pit another and larger 
piece of bone belonging to the forehead region of the same 
skull, and including a portion of the ridge extending 
over the left eyebrow. Immediately impressed with the 
importance of this discovery, Dawson enlisted the co- 
operation of Smith Woodward, and a systematic search 
was made in these spoil-heaps and gravels, beginning in 
the Spring of 1912; all the material was looked over and 
carefully sifted. It appears that the whole or greater 
part of the human skull had been scattered by the work- 
men, who had thrown away the pieces unnoticed. 
(Thorough search in the bottom of the gravel bed itself 
revealed the right half of a jaw), which was found in 
a depression of undisturbed, finely stratified gravel, so 
far as could be judged on the spot identical with that 
from which the first portions of the cranium were ex- 
humed. A yard from the jaw an important piece of the 
occipital bone of the skull was found. Search was re- 
newed in 1918 by Father P. Teilhard, of Chardin, a 
French Anthropologist, who fortunately recovered a 
single canine tooth, and later a pair of nasal bones were 
found, all of which fragments are of very great signifi- 
cance in the restoration of the skull.”’ 


[169] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


This excerpt is also interesting. Nine bones are intro- 
duced here. This is a better average than the above. 
The scientist has about four per cent evidence out of 
which to constitute this new race. But, our hard-headed 
friend, refusing to yield to caution, butts in again and 
insists that the other 197 bones be brought forth. They 
are missing. Well, it must be admitted again that 
missing facts are embarrassing. 

The Heidelberg Race. This race professedly repre- 
sents another important discovery for Anthropology. 
Osborn says, page 98: 


‘‘The discovery in 1907 of a human lower jaw in the 
base of the ‘Mauer sands’ is one of the most important 
in the whole history of anthropology. The find was 
made at a depth of 79 feet (24.10 m.) from the upper 
surface of a high bluff, in ancient river sands which had 
long been known to yield the very old mammalian fauna 
described above. For years the workmen had been in- 
structed to keep a sharp lookout for human remains. 
The jaw had evidently drifted down with the river sands 
and had become separated from the skull, but it re- 
mained in perfect preservation. Had the teeth been 
absent it would have been impossible to diagnose it as 
human.’’ 


The reader will observe that science here presents . 
only one bone, the teeth of which alone apparently giv- 
ing it identity. That the jaw bone was found no one 
denies or decries. But that a lone jaw bone should be 
used as a scientific basis for asserting the existence of a 
low order of human beings, our ancestral antecedents, 
is a presumption that facts disdain. In this case, there 


[170] 


Auu-But-BongeLEss Men 


were just 205 out of the 206 bones missing. That’s all! 
The missing facts here are oppressive. 

The Neanderthal Race. Much scattered evidence is 
offered to establish the historicity of this people. Of the 
Krapina skull of the Neanderthaloid race, Osborn says, 
page 183: 


‘‘The bones are in such a fragmentary condition that 
it is impossible to form a proper estimate of the brain 
capacity in either the males or females of this race; nor 
is it possible to estimate the stature.’’ 


Of the typical Neanderthal types, Osborn further says, 
page 217: 


‘‘In 1856 some workmen were engaged in clearing a 
small loam-covered cave about six feet in height, the so- 
ealled Feldhofner Grotto, in the cretaceous limestone of 
the valley known as the Neanderthal, on the small stream 
Dussel, flowing between Elberfeld and Dusseldorf. They 
discovered some human bones, probably a complete 
skeleton, representing an interment, which, unfortu- 
nately, were allowed to be scattered and crushed. Doctor 
Fuhlrott rescued the parts that remained, including the 
now famous skulleap, both thigh-bones, the right upper- 
arm bone, portions of the lower arm, bones of both sides, 
the right collar-bone, and fragments of the pelvis, 
shoulder-blade, and ribs. All the bones were perfectly 
preserved and are now to be found in the provincial 
museum of Bonn.’’ 


This represents the completest discovery hitherto 
brought to light. Even in these archeological discov- 
eries, one is unable to escape the prevalence of missing 
facts. Many bones are absent. 

The Cro-Magnon Race. The Cro-Magnon Race is not 


[171] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


in reality an intermediate type. It sums up in its physi- 
eal life the modern man. The archeological discoveries, 
illustrating the existence of this race are abundant. But 


the prevalence of bones here lose their significance be-- 


cause the Cro-Magnon race is thought to be immediately 
antecedent to the ancient races of historic times. These 
people do not mark an evolutionary stage in the develop- 
ment of modern man; they are we. The Cro-Magnon 
race, offered as evolutionary evidence, is unimportant 
because it is not an intermediate type between the ape 
and modern man. 

Our enquiring friend raises the question, ‘*‘ How can 
we know that the Cro-Magnon race, which is ‘supposed’ 
to have lived from 25 to 40 thousand years ago, consti- 
tutes the climax of natural selection in Organie evolu- 
tion?’’ To answer his question, while acknowledging 
that facts for the existence of these people are demon- 
strable, it must be admitted in turn that the facts which 
demonstrate them to be the crowning stage in a regular 
series of physical evolution are missing. That these 
people rose to culture heights unknown for their day is 
readily admitted, but to say dogmatically that they are 
the crown of a regular unbroken series of natural selec- 
tion in the animal order is saying more than can be 
demonstrated. That archeologists have found a few bones 
none can deny. That scientists have used such skimpy 
evidence to establish hypothetical and intermediate races 
all should decry. If such bones are human, they are we. 

A friend of Organic evolution interposes an objection 
to the above indictments on the ground that they fail to 
comprehend the discoveries of Cultural Anthropology. 

With reference to this criticism, only a few words in 


[172] 


ae 
———  —= So) 





Aut-But-BonELess Mien 


response will suffice. Evidence for the dominance of 
missing facts in Cultural Anthropolgy is disclosed in the 
continual recurrence of such terms as ‘‘probably,’’ 
‘‘thought,’’ ‘‘appears,’’ ‘‘assume,’’ ‘‘infer,’’ and ‘‘sup- 
pose.’’ Now, these terms are regularly used by scientists 
to bridge the chasm between the known and the un- 
known. These terms obviously imply missing facts. 

What does Sociology show? Sociology, as a science, 
is indebted in a large way to Biology, Anthropology, 
and Psychology for patterns of thought. Until quite 
recently it accepted the laws projected by these sciences 
and did very little scientific research for itself. 

Most modern Sociologists accept the Organic evolu- 
tionary pronouncements of their co-laborers in other 
sciences. The significance of this is disclosed in the 
labors of modern Sociologists. They assume, largely on 
the basis of other professedly scientific findings, that 
Organic evolution is a fact, and they in turn project 
their social program upon the basis of their assumption. 

Now, to get the import of this, it is necessary to 
remember that Organic evolution logically teaches that 
man is naturally good and that all ameliorative measures 
should be projected upon the basis of his innate good- 
ness. Our enquiring friend butts in again and ex- 
elaims, ‘‘If man is naturally good, how explain the 
regnance of evil ?’’ 

Can evil be explained completely in terms of nee ? 
If so, how account for the ability of man to make false 
adjustments? If ‘‘every impulse of man is good unless 
misdirected,’’ as evolution logically teaches, how account 
for the misdirection of the first impulse? As previously 
seen, no Organic evolutionists can accuse God, or the 


[173] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


devil, or physical environments, or original nature of 
being responsible for such misdirection. If neither of 
these represent the source of false motives and egoistic 
aspirations, then what? Why, there exists effects for 
which chere are no causes. Such cannot be the ease. 
Experience shows that man has been and is imperfect. 
If so, humanly speaking, the root of evil must be writ in 
the native equipment of man. If such is true, then 
science must abandon its doctrine of nature’s ‘‘infalli- 
bility.’”’? Every impulse of man is not right. No one 
ean find real justification for such behavior as teasing, 
bullying, envying, ete. 

The answer to the aforesaid questions is simply this: 
The capacity for human undoing is writ in human 
nature. No matter how many thinkers try to explain 
away the tragic fact of man’s native depravity, inherent 
sin ever remains an incontestable and universal fact. 
Man sins because the sin principle is in him. Man’s 
life reflects evil because the evil spirit is present in his 
life. The following review of human experience dis- 
closes insuperable difficulties for Sociologists. 

In every age and clime, one beholds the individual 
begirt with sin, circumscribed with selfishness, en- 
shrouded with spiritual darkness, and crowned with in- 
describable misery. 

In every age and clime, one beholds the mind of man 
exhausting itself in the creation of instruments of death, 
the heart of man impoverishing itself in its loveless 
urges, the will of man desolating itself in its fratricidal 
strife, and the life of man endangering itself in the blind 
destructions of its own moorings. 

In every age and clime, one beholds humanity blindly 


[174] 


Att-But-BongELess Men 


forging its own chains, unwittingly creating its own 
manacles, and unknowingly bleeding its own heart. 

Finally, in every age and clime, one beholds the race 
carelessly wasting its own strength, universally deci- 
mating its man-power, aimlessly prostituting its own 
energies, and recklessly satisfying its baser passions. 

What mean these tragic and indisputable facts? How 
explain the fact that the race is universally set against 
itself? How account for the universal existence of such 
suffering, such sin, such strife, such race suicide, such 
shame, and such death ? 

Original darkness can’t be derived from original 
light. Accordingly, the following conclusion is inescap- 
able: Man’s bad conduct grows primarily out of his bad 
nature. What, then, can be said for Sociology? Must 
not the conclusion be that its premise is a groundless 
one, because it is founded upon missing facts? 

Now, what shall we say as to the factual foundation 
for the doctrine of Organic evolution. Do not the absent 
data observed above force the conclusion that Organic 
evolution 1s founded upon missing facts? Surely such a 
conclusion is inescapable. It should be remembered that 
the establishment of intermediate races between the ape 
and the modern man is indispensable if the evolution of 
man is demonstrable. It should further be remembered 
that the establishment of nature’s infallibility inescap- 
ably devolves upon Organic evolutionary adherents. 
Neither has been, nor can be, established. In fact all 
nature belies Organic evolution. 

In the light of definition previously adduced, it will be 
recalled that Organic evolution outlaws involution; that 
is, it outlaws the function of any force or forces out- 


[175] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


side of individuals or things in a state of actual. or 
potential development. Science reveals involutionary 
factors universally involved in development or progress. 
Witness the following data: 

The spore, in and of itself, is incapable of reproducing 
its kind. Accordingly, intrinsic law is not enough. The 
intrinsic life of the spore must be vitalized by extrinsic 
factors of nature. Matter and moisture are necessary to 
excite reproductive activities. Uninfluenced by external 
factors, spore development is impossible. 

The seed, in and of itself, is incapable of reproducing 
its kind. Natural law resident in the seed is inadequate 
to guarantee the reproduction and perpetuation of the 
specie. Apart from the stimulation of external factors 
all herb life would perish. With the vitalization of 
inner forces by external factors herbs reproduce and 
perpetuate themselves. Thus, it is seen that involution- 
ary factors are indispensable to plant development. 

The ovum, in and of itself, is incapable of repro- 
ducing its kind. Parthenogenesis, life from an egg- 
ovum, is to date a humanly non-demonstrable doctrine. 
By virtue of nature’s processes, it must ever be so. It 
takes an external factor, spermatozoon, to vitalize the 
ovum and thus guarantee reproduction. It is significant 
to note that the factors do not stop with the fertilization 
of the ovum. Once the new embryo appears its subse- 
quent development continues to be more or less depend- 
ent upon external factors. To illustrate, the embryo is 
carried, nourished, and protected by its mother life. 
Obviously, then, objective factors are necessary for 
animal and human development. 

The mind, in and of itself, is incapable of develop- 


[176] 





Aut-But-Bongeutess Men 


ment. Reaction psychology maintains that mental devel- 
opment is conditioned upon a relative role for stimuli. 
Accordingly, the potential mind becomes actual primarily 
through the operation of stimuli extrinsic to it. Re- 
action psychology further teaches that spiritual develop- 
ment is similarly conditioned. To make worshipful 
responses implies the existence of factors, physical and 
personal, outside of the individual to evoke them. Thus, 
mental and spiritual development involves involutionary 
factors. 

Now, in the light of these facts, will not all agree that 
the vegetable, the animal, and the human kingdoms all 
reveal indispensable involutionary roles in their repro- 
ductive processes. The dependence of inner forces upon 
outer factors for vitalization, most assuredly reveals a 
fundamental weakness in Organic evolution. In requir- 
ing outer factors for the vitalization of inner forces, 
nature sweeps aside a mainstay of Organic evolution and 
reveals the emptiness of the evolutionary hypothesis. 

The dependence of inner forces upon outer factors is 
not limited to organic life. Such influence is also 
revealed in cosmic forces and processes as well. 

The earth, in and of itself, is incapable of maintaining 
itself. Without the co-ordinated influences of other 
astral bodies upon it, its orbit would be eliminated and 
its life would be destroyed in a maze of incoherent 
activities. According to Astronomy it takes the opera- 
tion of external factors to guarantee the earth’s unity 
in action. Centrifugal and tidal phenomena actually 
reveal gravity in a unifying role. As already forecast 
this principle of behavior also holds true with all of the 
heavenly bodies. 


(177] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


Finally, the universe, in and of itself, is incapable 
of maintaining itself. In the light of previous findings, 
and in the light of logic, the universe is potentially 
incapable of purposeful behavior. There must be an ex- 
ternal force to operate upon it in order to vitalize its 
activities. To admit such a force, however, is to posit a 
Transcendent God. Logically and philosophically, it 
takes Infinite Life to vitalize natural law. Thus, the 
orderly activities of the heavens find adequate explana- 
tion only in an Infinite God. Accordingly, the Uni- 
verse’s processes are not vitalized by natural law but by 
Infinite Life. 

Now, the law of life appears in the activities described 
above. The law is as follows: Every response wn life 
ranging from the simplest to the most complex, or from 
the indwidual to the cosmos, 1s conditioned wpon the 
reciprocal and complementary roles of nature and nur- 
ture. In shutting life’s processes up to nature, Organic 
evolution ignores nurture and as a consequence the 
theory breaks down of itself. Organic evolutionists must 
insist on development by, and only by, forces intrinsic 
in nature or surrender their whole position. 

Viewing life from the angles of biology, astronomy, 
and experience, one can not escape the conclusion that 
it all belies the evolutionary hypothesis. Organic evolu- 
tion is founded upon missing facts. 


Evolution Is an Ultra-Scientific Doctrine 
In order to attest any fact, inductive science demands 
that the race subject it to observation, investigation, and 
experimentation. In this, one beholds the undoing of 
Organic evolution. It is actually impossible to bring 


[178] 


Auu-But-Bonguess Mien 


the hypothetical stages of evolutionary development 
under observation, investigation, and experimentation. 
For instance, man is impotent to transplant himself 
back into the yesterdays and observe ‘‘homo-simian”’ 
creatures living in the trees and clinging with their 
hands to branches thereof. He is equally impotent to 
investigate and experiment with men who are supposed 
to have lived twenty-five thousand years ago. If evolu- 
tionary data cannot be subjected to scientific procedure, 
then it is obviously an ultra-scientific doctrine. 

An objector obtrudes here and exclaims, ‘‘ Why this 
is nothing new. Modern scientists have known for a 
quarter of a century that Organic evolution cannot be 
demonstrated.’’ The author grants this. But he insists 
that the continual streams of books which are being 
turned out by modern educators and which are organized 
around the Organic evolutionary hypothesis are prima 
facie evidence that many educators do accept such evolu- 
tion to be true. While confessing Organic evolution to 
be ultra-scientific, they assume it to be a fact. It is the 
assumptions and not the confessions of modern scientists, 
which make it necessary to declare anew evolution to be 
an unscientific doctrine. 

Organic evolution is founded upon missing facts and 
the necessary intermediate races are all-but-boneless 
ones. 


[179] 


CHAPTER IX 


World’s Greatest Importunity 


NDIVIDUALS consciously standing in the midst of 

the present social order are acutely aware of the 
prevalence of unsocial tendencies. Upon surveying the 
prevailing chaos, they involuntarily exclaim, ‘‘Why so 
much antagonism? Why so much confusion? Why so 
much greed and graft? Why so much vice and crime? 
Why so much nationalism and intrigue ?’’ 

Following these surveys, many attempt to diagnose 
our social evils. As would be expected, disagreements 
arise over the nature and causes of existing social dis- 
orders. The disagreements are explained by the fact 
that every individual tends to see what he looks for. 
His scale of accepted values largely determines what he 
sees. Thus, his beliefs minimize, if not absolutely 
obscure, any set values not comprehended in his own. 
Looking through the lenses of their own philosophy, 
Organic evolutionists, on the one hand, tend to see only 
natural and material factors. And the idealists, on the 
other hand, tend to see only ideational and spiritual 
factors. 

There are, in reality, but two series of values in life; 
namely, material and spiritual. These values are re- 
spectively self-ward and other-ward in nature and 
function. 

Material values are egoistic. They are reflected by 
such terms as profit, property, strife, oppression, and re- 


[180] 


Wor.up’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


pression. These values are earmarks of materialism and 
milestones in the development of selfishness. They are 
the lustrous and lusterless phases of the rule of power, 
prestige, and gold. Under such a role, all issues are 
bread and butter issues, and all morals are natural 
morals. The road of materialism runs self-ward; its 
motto is get; its code of ethics is prudential; and its 
super-man is rightfully regnant. 

Spiritual values are altruistic. They are reflected by 
such terms as integrity, justice, peace, freedom, and fair 
play. These values are unerring symbols of spirituality ; 
indisputable earmarks of an other-regarding person- 
ality ; and imperishable monuments to the rule of love. 
Under such a rule, man does not live by bread alone. He 
transcends material values and nourishes his soul upon 
the ‘‘Bread of Life.’’ All selves are enjoined to think 
for others. ‘‘Seek not your own but your neighbor’s.”’ 
‘‘Bear ye one another’s burden.’’ Manifestly, the road 
of spirituality runs other-ward; its motto is give; its 
code of ethics is humanitarian; and its humblest 1s roy- 
ally regnant. 

Now, it is obvious that representatives of these two 
schools of thought would render diametriec verdicts as to 
the cause and cure of present social chaos. It is equally 
obvious that each school, after reviewing human ills, 
would render diametric verdicts as to the world’s great- 
est importunity. The first group, looking at the social 
order through material lenses, finds material ills, and 
offers material remedies; while the second group, looking 
through spiritual lenses, finds spiritual ills, and offers 
spiritual remedies. 

The materialistic thinkers, in prescribing for human 


[181] 


Can An Evoxuutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


needs, really divide into two groups; namely, Behavior- 
istic and Socialistic. The one declares that the world’s 
ereatest importunity is Behavioristic education. The 
other avers that the world’s greatest need is a redistribu- 
tion of wealth and an equitable distribution of bread. 

The idealistic thinkers, in offering their prescription 
for social ills, also divide into two classes; namely, Idea- 
tionalists and Re-creationalists. The one says that 
knowledge is the world’s greatest importunity. The 
other avers that a new manhood is the world’s greatest 
need. 

Now, it is universally agreed, on the one hand, that 
the world should be rid of its social ills. It must also be 
agreed, on the other hand, that concerted human action 
cannot be secured for the elimination of the evils in the 
present order. What the enquirer really wants to know 
is, which, if any, of the above groups rightly prescribes 
for the world’s supreme need? A brief study of each 
of the proposed solvents will now follow. 


Physical Determinism and Human Succor 


The first materialistic group says that the world’s 
greatest importunity is Behavioristic education. Is it? 
Would automatic reactions to physical situations solve 
social problems? What is Behavioristic education, any- 
way, that it should be proposed as a solvent? 

It is a system of education based upon the concept that 
man is simply a highly developed mechanism. It con- 
fidently asserts that there is no line of demarcation be- 
tween man and the beasts. Hence, education should be 
predicated simply upon human reactions to physical 
environments. It follows from such assumptions that 


[182] 


WoRrLp’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


all things abstract would be divorced from the educa- 
tive process; hence, there would be no place for idealism, 
for ethical standards, for codes of honor, for the human 
will, for God. The goal of Behaviorism being the de- 
velopment of a perfectly trained human animal, the 
functions of ideals in teaching and in interpretation is 
precluded. It thus follows that the objective of Be- 
haviorism would be to control perfectly the adjustments 
and relationships of human beings by the control of their 
physical environments. Such a goal would be logical, 
if human life were but a complex series of reacting 
mechanisms; that is, if mankind were only of the earth 
earthy. Accordingly, the process of education would 
simply be automatic reaction; and the end of education 
would simply be unconscious perfection. 

With reference to these assumptions, it is readily ad- 
mitted that man is a reacting being, and that physical 
environments greatly influence his conduct. But facts 
do not sustain the assumption that the physical alone 
functions in the educative process. Central stimulation 
is assumed by most Reaction Psychologists of today. 
Woodworth boldly declares such a role for mentations. 
Ideational forces must be reckoned with. Man thinks 
as well as reacts physically. Ideals shape and motivate 
human activities. Physical environments only evoke 
human responses. Now, if ideas and ideals, as spiritual 
forces, influence human conduct, and if Behaviorism 
ignores them, then the dominance of Behaviorism would 
weaken and witness the passing of the race’s spiritual 
heritage. Behaviorism outlaws spiritual expression in 
education. 

Must students of human nature and nurture agree 


[183] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


that the development of a perfectly reacting human 
animal to a perfectly controlled physical environment 
is the world’s greatest need? Manifestly, no! The 
world’s greatest trouble is not physical; it is spiritual. 
With this conclusion the major portions of mankind 
coneur. To it, functional psychologists, ethicists, poets, 
litterateurs, historians, martyrs, patriots, and multitudes 
of churchmen subscribe. General Joffre expressed the 
dominating conviction of the race when he voted that - 
he was immortal. Mankind as a whole refuses to be 
placed categorically with the lower animals. Man is 
more than a bundle of nerves and connective nerve 
tissues. He is moral as well as material; volitional as 
well as reactional; and sovereign as well as subject. 
Unconscious perfection cannot satisfy him. Man is 
neither an unconscious nor a cringing slave. 

According to facts and consensus of opinion, man is 
not simply of the earth earthy. He is mental and spir- 
itual as well as physical. As above asserted, his chief 
social problems are spiritual rather than material. 
Granting this, Behaviorism would manifestly fail to 
succor the race because it would ignore the factors really 
contributing to civilization ; namely, spiritual factors. 


Economic Determinism and Human Succor 
The second materialistic group declares that the 
world’s greatest importunity is a redistribution of 
wealth and an equitable distribution of bread. Is it? 
Would the redistribution of the world’s accumulated 
wealth bring in the golden age of peace and prosperity ? 
Would the redistribution of wealth and an equitable dis- 


[184] 


Wor.p’s Greatest IMPORTUNITY 


tribution of bread change the motives and redirect the 
aptitudes of the race? 

Keonomie determinists declare that great estates are 
the bone of all evil; that the institutional life of mankind 
is a product and handmaiden of business; that all wars 
are money wars; and that all evils are money evils. 
They insist that 51 per cent of America’s wealth is owned 
by two per cent of its constituency; and that 83 1-3 per 
cent of American and European children are born with 
no other heritage than poverty. They further insist 
that great estates are not home builders; and that civi- 
lization resting upon such disproportions of wealth must 
sooner or later perish. 

It is readily admitted that the distribution of wealth 
is ill proportioned among men; and that the elimination 
of poverty and pauperism is coveted by all sane social 
thinkers. But the trouble with Marxian Socialism, as 
a social panacea, is it fads to get its bearings as to the 
role of money and the nature of man. Money is not the 
trouble with the race; it is the love of money. Any 
solvent of human ills which ignores the innate disposi- 
tion of man to covet wealth must be irremedial. 

Economie determination is its own indictment. The 
late Russian tragedy, born of an incomparable famine, 
is the true earmark of Socialism. Its impotency is 
demonstrated in the death of Russia’s starving millions. 
Such a disaster is monumental evidence of its selfish- 
ness. Sir Hall Caine declares that the late famine in 
Russia was the gravest disaster since the flood. In its 
last analysis, economic determinism is classism. An 
impartial student must conclude that all that 1t can 
ultimately guarantee is slavery and death. 


[185] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRISTIAN? 


Wealth is essential, but it is not redemptive. Re- 
distribute wealth and it won’t stay put. It will flow 
again into the hands of the few. Such being true, wealth 
is thus shown to be impotent to bring permanent succor 
to social ills. Gold may requite many bodily desires but 
it is impotent to purge human souls. 

Economic determinists further maintain that the 
world must have bread. Would an equitable distribu- 
tion of bread bring order out of social chaos? Would 
a well-fed world integrate human forces, and establish 
harmonious and co-operative relationships? Would 
bread be a cure-all for our social diseases? Would a 
satisfied stomach estop wrong impulses, thoughts, and 
conduct ? 

That adequate bread would contribute toward social 
well-being none would deny. That adequate distribu- 
tion of bread would bring cheer and thanksgiving to 
teeming hungry multitudes, none would gainsay. What 
a blessing to nourish the world’s hungry hordes! While 
famines are in themselves grievously afflicting, resulting 
social, political, and economic disturbances are far more 
afflicting. Disease and deviltry, disaster and death run 
riot. Let the world be fed to-day! Satisfy all hunger 
now, and famine will return to-morrow! History shows 
that famines stalk and restalk over lands where the good 
Samaritan has carried succor. Obviously, then, the re- 
moval of hunger today is not a guarantee against its 
return to-morrow. It thus follows that the service of 
bread is a temporary one. A full stomach is physically 
satisfying, but it 1s not soul-cleansing and soul-nourish- 
ing. Its service is passing, not permanent. Above 1900 
years ago the Sage of Sages declared, ‘‘Man does not 


[186] 


Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


live by bread alone.’’ He knew that bread was not a 
panacea for all social ills. Now, if the function of bread 
1S a passing one, it is manifestly not the world’s greatest 
importunity. 

The above review of physical and economic determi- 
nism shows each to be lacking as a panacea for social ills. 
Each fails to measure up to social demands. Each pos- 
sesses inherent weaknesses which disqualify for indi- 
vidual and social redemption because each ignores the 
existence and function of spiritual factors in life. It 
is safe to say that any proposed panacea which does 
not take note of spiritual factors in life processes must 
fail. Man’s chief problems are demonstrably spiritual 
rather than material. The impotency of materialism is 
writ in its own nature. 

Now, if the prescriptions given by the materialistic 
groups fail as panaceas for human ills, then what about 
the prescriptions of the idealistic groups? The remedial 
claims of the latter follow below. 


Knowledge and Human Succor 


The world’s greatest importunity is knowledge, says 
the first Ideationalist. Is it? Is knowledge the social sol- 
vent? Is knowledge the way out of the matrix of chaos 
and death? Is knowledge redemptive? Is reason the 
human rescuer? Will knowledge bring peace and per- 
fection? Organic evolutionists say so. 

This knowledge group of would-be rescuers contest the 
claims of Behaviorism. These thinkers maintain that 
physical determinism ignores the fundamental functions 
of the mind. Man, they declare, knows, wills, and feels 
as well as he reacts physically. Hence, human menta- 


[187] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


tions should not be ignored in the solution of social 
problems. 

Organic evolutionists, however, while contesting the 
claims of Behaviorists, also oppose all aspects of super- 
naturalism in religion and education. Such an attitude 
is logical since Organic evolution divorces such. Ac- 
cording to this Darwinian mental pattern, man is simply 
an animal risen to the plane of consciousness. His life 
has been and is in a continual climb. He is neither 
naturally bad nor habitually good. What he needs is 
direction, not regeneration. To guarantee direction, 
ideal-social guidance must be provided through the 
learning process. Accordingly, increases in ethical cul- 
ture mean decreases in social ills. Ethical education 
thus appears in a role of redemption. Consequently, 
salvation becomes an end-result of mental and moral 
srowth. Therefore, enlightenment inescapably becomes 
the solvent of the race’s ills. 

Will the spread of knowledge solve our social prob- 
lems? What are social ills anyway? In the last analysis, 
they are evils, thought of in the aggregate, perpetuated 
by individuals. Then the problem is, Will education re- 
deem the individual? or Will knowledge change the 
nature of man? What does education do for man any- 
way? Obviously, the answer to this question should 
reveal the redemptive power of knowledge. 

Broadly speaking, education is a process and a state 
of habit formation. Habits, according to nature’s econ- 
omy, tend to become involuntary ; that is, learned activi- 
ties tend to be reduced to automatic centers in order to 
free the mind from consciously retaining and directing 
accumulated learning. Under such functions, man’s 


[188] 


Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


character would manifestly tend to become an organic 
summation of all his habits. 

The following question naturally obtrudes itself. 
What kind of habits then does education provide. They 
are physical, mental, and moral. Do these habits change 
the nature of man? Or, do they merely establish new 
co-ordinations within and give intensity to the original 
nature of man? So far as science knows, education can 
only modify, reset, reshape, or reform the elemental 
habit propensities of the individual. The significance 
of this function is disclosed when one looks at the nature 
of man. Man’s impulses are predominantly self-ward; 
his motives are universally -egoistic; and his desires are 
fundamentally the foundation of knowledge. Now, if 
egoistic desires universally predominate, then the in- 
erease of knowledge means the increase of selfishness. 
But selfishness, instead of being a panacea for social 
ills, is admittedly a source of social evils. Thus, knowl- 
edge is seen to be, not redemptive, but unregenerative. 
It is admitted that ideals motivate, but they do not re- 
create. Knowledge 1s good, and it is to be diligently 
sought, but rt 1s manifestly not the world’s greatest 
importumty. 

But knowledge brings peace, the Ideationalist further 
insists. Does it? Has the spread of knowledge been 
attended by increasing epochs of peace? Would such 
give the races of men spiritual equilibrium ? 

Pacifists maintain that peace is the undergirding 
principle of progress, and that it is only upon such a 
foundation that an enduring social structure can be 
erected. Would peace outlaw selfishness and purge 
human motives of their dross? Under its rule, would 


[189] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


prosperity become the everlasting boon of mankind? 
Would internal improvements become undying testi- 
monials for the alleviating solvency of human co-opera- 
tion? Would good will supplant intrigue? And would 
children be reared for service rather than the sword ? 

With reference to these questions, it must be admitted 
that peace is a panacea for some things. But what assur- 
ance has the race that disarmament, internal improvye- 
ments, financial solvency, and filial happiness would 
change the nature of man? Race experience offers none. 
Reason is impotent here. The peace solvent is, too, but 
a knowledge solvent, and its failure is writ in the im- 
potency of ideals to redeem. 

Human history amply demonstrates the impotency of 
the race to succor itself. A stream cannot rise higher 
than its source. Since the stream of humanity is the 
stream of carnality, its dip is naturally down. 

It must be admitted that the importunity for the re- 
distribution of wealth, for the elimination of famine, for 
the divorcement of war, and for the ideal-socialization 
of education, is a tremendous trumpet eall to the race, 
but it, too, must be admitted that neither of the above 
trumpet calls represents the supremest need of man. 


New Manhood and Human Succor 


The world’s greatest importunity 1s a new manhood, 
says the Re-creationalist. Is it? Is a new life essential 
to a solution of our problems? Is a new nature necessary 
to guarantee social well-being? Is a changed nature, 
new psychic elements, impulses and motives, the hope 
of the world? 

The need of all needs is a new manhood. A manhood 


[190] 


Worwp’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


that will make the rule of justice and truth inevitable; 
a manhood that will bring labor and eapital into 
mutually co-operative relationships; and a manhood that 
will Christianize education, extirpate famine, turn 
swords into plowshares, and establish democracy among 
men forever. Man who has been the menace of every 
age must become the panacea of this and subsequent 
ages. 

The problem of ail problems before the race 1s one of 
regeneration. How may man who daily carries hate 
and sensuality in his heart, who daily wades impure 
marshes of vice and erime, and who daily plunges into 
the depths of sin and shame, become the possessor of 
new love-impulses, new love-motives, and new love- 
programs? 

The Jailer faced these facts when he said to Paul and 
Silas, ‘‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’’ With refer- 
ence to regeneration, it should not be overlooked that 
any plan of redemption which does not take note of the 
fact of man’s depraved nature, a nature which daily 
plays the role of the bestial, must in the end fail. The 
manhood about which the poet regretfully sang: 


‘‘What though the spicy breezes, 
Blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle, 
Though every prospect pleases, 
And only man is vile.’’ 


is reproduced in this and every age. How may such a 
manhood be purged of its dross? How may the miracle 
of a changed nature be effected? Can it be attained by 
any agency natural to man? Let’s see. 


[191] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


The Impotency of Man 


The race has recourse to but three distinctly human 
processes for its succor and salvation; namely, natural 
worship, education, and works. Evidence will show that 
all of these are inadequate panaceas. 

Natural religion 1s impotent to regenerate man. The 
reason for this negative answer is simple. The nature 
and strength of natural religion are but the nature’and 
strength of man. The efficacy of nature worship is 
simply the efficacy of mental controls. The gods of 
nature worshippers are humanly created and their attri- 
butes are humanly assigned. Hence, man’s reactions 
to his imagined gods are but reactions to his own menta- 
tions. This simply means that man ean, through his 
created religions, lift himself but as high as himself. 
But by taking thought of himself, he cannot add one 
inch to his stature. He cannot put any more saving 
potency in a program for human cleansing than he him- 
‘self possesses. Consequently, if man ever rises above 
himself, or if he ever attains unto a new nature, he 
must be aided by a power extrinsic to himself. Nature 
worship, being simply subjective, is not redemptive, but 
enslaving. By it, the race forges its own fetters. 

Education is impotent to regenerate man. Education 
is a process of multiplying, organizing, and integrating 
experiences. Structurally speaking, it is at any moment 
the sum of the connections in the nervous system formed 
through reactions to stimuli. According to Thorndyke, 
education is essentially the modification of original 
nature, and, according to Chatman and Counts, it is 
mental habits. Thus, through the learning process, the 


[192] 


Worwp’s Greatest IMpoRTUNITY 


race modifies its original nature, and develops habits of 
feeling, intellection, and action. These habits, however, 
are not re-creations. They are simply the modifications of 
original nature. -The most that the learning process 
can do for the individual is to reform, reset, and reshape 
the elements of his original nature, and, in turn, mini- 
mize or maximize individual reactions. 

The theory current today which claims that every 
impulse of man is good unless misdirected is quite spe- 
cious. By it, all that devolves upon mankind in order 
to secure social and individual redemption is to increase 
the accumulation of ethical knowledge and _ environ- 
mental controls. This theory is attractive, indeed. Al- 
though, a brief reference has already been made to this 
doctrine, a further elaboration of it is necessary. 

What is knowledge? Knowledge is the ‘‘summum 
bonum,’’ the greatest good, of the learning process. Not- 
withstanding this fact, it is impotent to succor humanity 
because it reflects the imperfections of the carnal nature 
through which it is acquired. Every impulse is not 
good. What then does the acquisition of knowledge do? 
It does not create a new creature, it only reforms the 
old creature. All of the degrees in the world are im- 
potent to re-create life. Degrees are but conventional 
appendages whose logical function is extraneous to the 
holder. Let it be remembered that if there is one ele- 
ment of weakness in human knowledge, that one element 
alone vitiates knowledge as a regenerative force. The 
maximum achievement of the learning process is an 
ethical and cultured carnality. 

What about ethics? Will ethics save? Ethics is the 
‘“‘summum bonum’’ of human judgments. But human 


[193] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


judgments also reflect the imperfections of human 
nature. History shows that out of the most cultured and 
best regulated homes criminals come; and that the most 
thoughtful and careful parents have often found their 
children to be shamefully recreant to duty. The facts 
are: If you educate a thief, you will produce a profiteer ; 
if you educate an ignorant fool, you will produce an in- 
famous wiseacre; and if you educate a ‘‘pimp”’’ you will 
produce a white-slaver. Ethical education is good, we 
can’t have too much of the right kind, but it is not re- 
generative. All of the ethical standards in the world are 
impotent to re-create life. 

The impotency of human mentations to solve social 
and individual problems is universally patent. The 
irredemptive capacity of ideas and ideals is oppressingly 
manifest today. This age witnesses the greatest tragedy 
of all the ages. It is not the World War with its in- 
comparable losses; it is not the late ‘‘flu’’ with its in- 
describable ravages; it is not the famines of China and 
Russia with their incomparable sufferings. The late 
tragedy of tragedies is the break down of the moral and 
spiritual heritage of the race. Social, national, and 
international conventions have floundered. 

But what have conventions to do with mentations? 
The heart of knowledge is disclosed in its accumulated 
and approved ideas. Such approved ideas are simply 
ideals and standards, or sanctions and tabooes; in other 
words, conventions. Now, these conventions are the 
race’s spiritual governors, or its ideational moorings. 
They give form, color, limitation, motivation, and direc- 
tion to civilization. Destroy them and the race drifts. 

How account for the present floundering of conven- 


[194] 


Worwup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


tions? The explanation is simple: The destruction of 
ideals is realized through the same process as their de- 
velopment; namely, the learning process. If this is true, 
and true it must be, then the social ills of this age are 
direct products of the learning process. It thus appears 
that modern education has been destructive. By its 
materialism and self-ward training, it has cut the race’s 
moral and spiritual moorings, and has left humanity 
at the mercy of its own insatiable selfishness. 

This age in which knowledge reaches the zemth of «ts 
glory and science masters the world in its conquest, 
and this age in which knowledge clothes itself with a 
boasted ethical vesture and crowns itself with human 
light and altruism, is the one age of all ages which 
demonstrates beyond all peradventure the impotency of 
knowledge as a social solvent. The world’s boasted 
knowledge witnesses rts own failure. It was powerless 
to control the emotions of the race after the firing of a 
single shot wn the Balkans. It was powerless at The 
Hague to stop a conflagration that was destined to en- 
velop the whole world, and it is powerless now to stop 
wars. 

Under the regnancy of modern enlightenment, moral 
standards have been destroyed, social sanctions have 
been banned, international conventions have been ta- 
booed, immorality has been pandered, hatred and sus- 
picion have been planted, dragons’ teeth have been sown, 
death and deviltry have been cultivated, mental ener- 
gies have been dedicated to racial destruction, vice has 
been paraded as virtue, and Hell’s culture has been pro- 
jected as earth’s savior. Culture agencies flounder to- 
day. 


[195] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuristiaAn ? 


Why do not nations respect The Hague Tribunal:? 
International conventions have broken down! Why the 
present prevalence of chaos and civil war? National 
conventions have broken down! Why the small value of 
human lives and the prevalence of midnight ‘‘petting 
parties?’’ Social conventions have broken down! Why 
these series of indescribable tragedies? Human conven- 
tions have broken down! 

Let the earnest evolutionist look at the fruitage of his 
own social solvent; let the honestly-deceived modernist 
open his eyes and behold the discomfiture of his mentally 
ereated god; let the ever-present wiseacre discern the 
destruction of his own hands; and let the blatant fool, 
boasting himself of his knowledge and condescendingly 
excusing the orthodoxy of the layman on the grounds of 
his ignorance, look at his own hands and behold the 
blood of his fellows, and in turn let him look at the race 
and behold the ravages of his ideational achievements ! 

The verdict of History also affirms the impotency of 
knowledge. According to its judgment, knowledge has 
universally failed to succor the race and build abiding 
foundations. An intelligent survey of recorded human 
experience reveals science, Jurisprudence, natural philos- 
ophy, natural worship, and absolutism, all products of 
the mind, in fruitless attempts to stabilize social orders. 

Push back the frontiers of understanding but a few 
years and behold science lifting up The Hague Tribunal, 
a symbol of hope and peace to a war-torn and weary 
world. Under the orientation of its promises, many 
hearts sing for joy. Hope crowns the oppressed with 
garlands of deliverance. But this new hope is destined 
to be short-lived. A high school boy in the Balkans 


[196] 


Worup’s Greatest ImporRTUNITY 


pulls a trigger; a pistol shot is fired; a man falls; the 
race turns agog; and nations grapple groggily at each 
other’s throats. Ten million dead and one billion debt 
are incontestable witnesses to the failure of science to 
stabilize foundations. 

Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little 
further and behold Rome lifting up her head on the 
seven hills of the Tiber. Through organization and con- 
quest she extends her borders unto the known parts of 
the earth. Wonderful in jurisprudence and powerful in 
might, she bids fair to perpetuate her institutions and 
her social order. But, sin and selfishness sap her 
strength. Weakened by selfish indulgences, she feebly 
faces an enemy without. Alaric beats upon her gates; 
the walls are razed to the ground; and the Dark Ages 
are born. History witnesses Rome’s finish and declares 
the Dark Ages to be undying testimonials to the failure 
of jurisprudence to save a civilization. 

Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little 
further and behold the Hellenes, proud, buoyant, exub- 
erant, and effervescing Hellenes, rounding out a wonder- 
ful commonwealth. Under the tutelage of Protagoras, 
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno, they 
ereate a civilization founded upon natural philosophy. 
Through exalting nature and its beauties and through 
emphasizing this world and the present, they produce a 
social order unequalled in its art and unparalleled in 
material splendor. Their natural philosophy reflects it- 
self in every aspect of their social and institutional life. 
Look at Greece to-day and behold the ruins of a mighty 
past. The faded glory of her yesterdays is prima facie 


[197] 


Can An Evouutionist Be A CHRISTIAN ? 


evidence of the failure of natural philosophy to save a 
civilization. 

Push back the frontiers of understanding but a little 
further and behold Syria erecting an extended common- 
wealth. Great in her zeal and in her natural science, 
she carves her ideals into stone. Her architecture 
reaches such dazzling heights in its manipulation and 
perfection that the world looks on today in amazement. 
Envisage, if you will, her majestic ruins, silent and dis- 
mal, yet they bear tragic testimony. The ruins of Syria 
today unquestionably attest the failure of natural wor- 
ship to save a civilization. 

Push back the frontiers of understanding but one step 
further and behold Egypt, cultural, architectural, and 
scientific Egypt, creating a civil and material common- 
wealth. Her kings, drunk with power and enraptured 
with personal ambitions, commandeer hosts of the land 
and erect pyramids as final resting places. These monu- 
ments, symbols of vainglory and tyranny, mark the 
zenith of absolutism in the social life of the race. Stand 
hard by the pyramids today and behold the sand-blasts 
of the deserts slowly but surely wear their strength away. 
‘Grizzly, ghastly, and ghostly,’’ they stand as undying 
witnesses to the failure of absolutism to save a civiliza- 
tion. 

Thus, History, in turning back the pages of man’s 
yesterdays, reveals the impotency of science, juris- 
prudence, natural philosophy, natural worship, and ab- 
solutism to save civilization. Accordingly, knowledge 
as a social solvent stands indicted by recorded human 
experience. Surely, in the face of these facts, humanity 


[198] 


Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


can ill afford to commit itself entirely to the potency 
and direction of knowledge. 

Organic evolution is selfishness and its functions are 
inevitably destructive. Selfishness promotes death. 
There are no crimes so heinous, no deeds so dirty, no 
thoughts so contemptible, no loves so debased, no desire 
so sensuous, no ambitions so low, and no acts so bestial, 
but that they flourish in the sow of evolutionary culture. 

This age with its halo of intellectual light discloses 
vistas of incomparable suffering and chaos. The present 
break-down in social conventions is monumental and un- 
deniable evidence of the impotency of knowledge in 
mediating salvation. Exit knowledge! 

Works are also impotent to regenerate. Good works 
are the ‘‘summum bonum’’ of human conduct. They 
produce habits founded upon imperfect natures. Hu- 
~ man nature being universally imperfect, human acts are 
universally imperfect. If human conduct reflects a 
single element of imperfection, then all the works in all 
the world are inadequate to raise mankind to a plane 
of perfection. For the race to escape its sorrows and 
sufferings, it must attain unto a state of perfection. To 
realize such a state the race must rise above itself. To 
rise above itself, it must be aided by a power transcen- 
dent to its own. Now, since the race in and of itself 
is unable to lift itself above itself, its hopes for suc- 
coring itself are doomed to perpetual disappointment. 

The greatest height to which human endeavor ean lift 
mankind is the summit of altruism. Altruism, while the 
highest expression of man’s native equipment, roots it- 
self in imperfect nature. Works, therefore, must be wm- 
potent to save. 


[199] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CuHristTIAN? 


Now, if nature worship, ethical education, and good 
works are all impotent to regenerate mankind, and if 
these exhaust the native means of man to effect his own 
salvation, what about Organic evolutionists’ boasted 
claim, ‘‘Man must lift himself by his own bootstraps?’’ 
Whither shall he turn if all things earthly and human 
fail? There is but one alternative left: Heaven must be 
invoked. Humanity must turn to God’s Christ. The 
hope of mankind is the God-man. The wise will accept 
Christ’s impeachment of the social order and promise 
of succor when he said, ‘‘And I, if I be lifted up will 
draw all men unto me.’’ 

Objectors obtrude here and protest this claim for 
Christ. They insist that Organic evolution is mani- 
festly the mode of creation, and that such a mode neces- 
sarily negates the deity of Jesus. Accordingly, Christ 
becomes a human being, a mere mutation of the Homo- 
Sapiens stock. Or He becomes a genius, a super-man in 
religion. Hence, they insist that Christ worship is idol- 
atry, and that implicit faith in Him is against progress. 
Christ worship thus ties the hands of the present with 
the ‘‘dead hands of the past.’’ Moreover, these errant 
Christians, and enemies of the Cross, boldly aver that 
‘‘Christianity is slowly dying’’ and calmly declare that 
its slow death refutes the deity of Jesus Christ. 

With reference to this last imputation, it is but fair 
to state that atheists and evolutionists alone are able to 
observe such a phenomenon. The reason that Chris- 
tianity appears to them to be dying grows out of the 
fact that true spiritual perspectives are scarcely dis- 
cernible through quasi-spiritual lenses, When the smoke 
of materialism bedims the lenses of the soul, the indi- 


[200] 


Wor_p’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


vidual looking from the low ground of naturalism has a 
very limited outlook. If atheists and evolutionists 
would exchange their material lenses for spiritual ones 
and then do sentry work, they would discover that Chris- 
tianity is robust and strong. It should be remembered 
that it is only the blind and dying who are now digging 
the grave and writing the funeral dirge of Christianity. 

That the citadel of Christianity is being stormed and 
besieged by atheists and evolutionists, no one conversant 
with current movements would deny; that the absence of 
multitudes from church activities is a very grave prob- 
lem for Christian forces, none can gainsay; and that 
these tendencies subject humanity to unsocial influences 
all agree. Notwithstanding these tendencies, Chris- 
tianity is the most vital fact of this age. 

It should be observed that the failure of atheists and 
evolutionists to observe Christian growth for the race 
is no argument against it, because the carnal mind can- 
not perceive spiritual realities. The carnal mind seeks 
for signs while the spiritual mind walks by faith; hence 
it turns to Christ. 


The All-Sufficiency of Jesus 
or 
Christ the Source of New Manhood 

There are three outstanding reasons why Jesus of 
Nazareth is the source of new manhood. Simply stated, 
the reasons are as follows: 

(1) He alone has perfect re-creating power. 

(2) He alone has true re-motivating power. 

(3) He alone has sure re-organizing power. 

Christ alone has perfect re-creating power. In such 


[201] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


virtue, one is able to discern the real basis for a new 
manhood. Christ who created man from the dust and 
gave him a dynamic spirit-life is able to re-create fallen 
man and restore to him his lost spiritual life. 

That Christ Jesus has the power to re-create a soul 
is attested both by the Bible and by Christian experience. 
How does He do it? ‘‘The wind bloweth where it list- 
eth, thou hearest the sound thereof but canst not tell 
whence it cometh and whither it goeth, so is every one 
that is born of the spirit.’’ Now, when Christ says, 
‘‘Ye must be born again,’’ He declares the necessity of 
re-creation. When He says, ‘‘As Moses lifted up the 
serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not 
perish but have eternal life,’’ He enunciates the condi- 
tion of re-creation. And, when He declares, ‘‘I am the 
way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the 
Father but by me,’’ He proclaims Himself to be the 
only means of re-creation. 

His re-creative power is widely attested. Isaiah says, 
‘‘Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor- 
rows: yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, 
and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgres- 
sions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastise- 
ment of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes 
we are healed.’’ Paul says, ‘‘To him give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever be- 
lieveth in him shall receive the remission of sins.’’? John 
says, ‘‘The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us 
from all sins.’’ Peter says, ‘‘ Neither is there salvation 
in any other; for there is none other name under heaven 
given among men whereby we must be saved.’’ The re- 


[202] 


Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


deemed say, ‘““What can wash away my sins? Nothing 
but the blood of Jesus.’’ 

Now these declarations stump liberalists. They have 
depths to which Organic evolutionists cannot dive, and 
heights to which they cannot climb. It takes faith to 
dive such depths and to climb such heights. The carnal 
mind is fettered, but faith knows no shackles. 

Search the world for tangible power to create or to 
re-create life and your quest is in vain. The wisdom of 
the past and the present has proven helpless in all such 
attempts. Individual experiments have absolutely 
failed. Science to date throws up the white flag of sur- 
render. Why these failures? The answer is obvious: 
The power to re-create life is not a possession of the 
vessel: such power alone belongs to the potter. The 
potter can and does create and re-create. Unnumbered 
millions will so attest. His work of re-creation is per- 
fectly and completely done. 

Christ alone has true re-motivating power. The Son 
of God does not stop with refashioning the human vessel 
and purging it of its dross, but He bequeaths to it a new 
spiritual dynamic for up-grade travel. Now, love and 
life-impelling motives supplant hate and life-destroying 
motives. 

The question is raised, How does Christ bestow upon 
man a new set of love and life-impelling motives? The 
answer to this interrogation is simply this, ‘‘The King- 
dom of God is within you.’’ Christ, in regenerating the 
souls of men, enthrones Himself in the heart of the re- 
venerated. Herein is seen the explanation of true re- 
motivation. The re-created aspires to do what Christ 
within aspires to do, Christ in him aspires for him. 


[203] 


Can Aw Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


Hence, the work of the re-created is not his but it is the 
work of Christ in him. 

Human beings, under the urge of their nature and 
ideals, can only rise to the summit of their ethical 
strength. Man without Christ is a heathen; man with 
Christ is Christian. Man re-motivated by Christ is 
actuated by love because Christ is love; and he is actuated 
by power because Christ 1s power. Benjamin Kidd, an 
eminent Englishman, declares, ‘‘Christ is the greatest 
power center of all the ages.’’ Christ alone is man’s 
true re-motivation. He turns man’s thoughts and acts 
away from self and thus impels other-regarding conduct. 

Christ alone is the sure re-orgamzing power. It is 
now seen that the steps of Christ’s work are progressive. 
In the first place, He re-creates; in the second, He re- 
motivates; and, in the third, He re-organizes human 
lives. Christ the Savior is Christ the Lord. His cleans- 
ing and impelling hand becomes a guiding hand. More- 
over, His guiding hand is a sure one. He guides in the 
processes of re-adjustments, and supervises the life’s 
program because He enthrones Himself within the re- 
deemed. Christ, having all understanding and all power, 
can sanely and surely supervise the lives of the saved, 
and guide them into new love-programs for the redemp- 
tion of mankind. 

Man by nature thinks and acts in terms of self. Man, 
through Christ’s nature, thinks and. acts away from self. 
Without Christ, man’s thoughts, aspirations, and acts 
are naturally self-regarding. With Christ, man’s im- 
pulses, aspirations, and acts are actually other-regard- 
ing. Hence, Christ is the source of the character or the 


[204] 


Worup’s GREATEST IMPORTUNITY 


new manhood needed as a solvent of our social ills. 
Christ alone enables man to love neighbor as himself. 

While the re-creating, re-motivating, and re-organiz- 
ing power of Christ is contested by Organic evolution- 
ists, modernists, and positivists, the author believes that 
so long as they storm the citadel of Christ’s deity, 
Saviorhood, and Lordship, with weapons manufactured 
from the four bones of Pithecanthropus-Erectus, they 
do little less than affront truth. Real science is not built 
upon inferences at long or short distances, but it is built 
upon facts, present and inclusive. The aspersions of the 
intellectuals are groundless. If they but knew Him they 
would have a new song. 


[205] 


CHAPTER X 


Law Versus Life 


WORLD survey discloses an Intellectual-Religious 

war impending. It reveals belligerents in councils 
of war, and shows active mobilization from the ends of 
the earth. The survey discloses two constantly enlarging 
and world-encireling battle camps. It reveals many 
advance skirmishes which are anticipatory and prophetie 
of the coming conflict, and shows regal forces ready to 
grapple in a decisive struggle. 

Naturalists and supernaturalists are now pitching a 
royal battle. Two systems of thought so diametrically 
opposed to each other as these cannot long share the 
same world. A decisive conflict is inevitable because 
their principles are irreconcilable. The first system 
gives right-of-way to natural law. The second gives pre- 
eminence to Infinite Life. The one indicts Heaven as an 
interference. The other invokes Heaven as an aid. The 
one centers human destiny in human endeavor. The 
other centers human destiny in a supernatural Savior. 
To the one, man is absolutely sovereign. To the other, 
he is relatively subject. The first assumes a negative 
attitude toward revelation, incarnation, verbal inspira- 
tion, and blood redemption. The second affirms each of 
these Christian verities, and maintains that their denial 
means the destruction of Christianity. The two systems 
being diametrically opposite in their nature and fune- 


[206] 


Law Versus Lire 


tion, naturally bring their followers into conflicting rela- 
tionships. 

It is not a pleasant fact to find naturalists and super- 
naturalists pitted against each other, but such is now 
becoming a tremendous fact. The conflict is destined to 
be a decisive one. 

The character of the combatants is of immediate con- 
cern to those who seek to anticipate the results of this 
mind and heart war as well as to those who must share 
its consequences. 


Law 


On the one side, naturalists, believers in the dominion 
of natural law, are many and strong. Their leaders are 
an enviable group. They are scholarly anc hard-work- 
ing. They represent the acme of human knowledge and 
skill, and as a rule, do not lack moral uprightness and 

integrity. To them, the universe is a dynamic center, a 
natural cause, and an unfolding law. 

These present-day intellectuals, often errant Chris- 
tians and invariably Organic evolutionists, have been 
for half a century gathering adherents, organizing war 
units, and assembling material for the impending conflict. 
Their position has been greatly strengthened by the 
public, which has unwittingly paid their bills while 
they buttressed their new theology against the possible 
attacks of orthodox Christians. 

As a rule, these naturalists, or evolutionists, are an 
intellectually sustained group. They scoff at the in- 
efficiency of organized church life and laugh at the 
anathemas hurled at them by church pulpiteers. They, 
like Goliath of old, issue morning challenges to the army 


[207] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


of God. These challenges abound in modern psycholo- 
gies, biologies, sociologies, and philosophies, and are 
veritable spear thrusts into the body of Christianity; 
yea, they are more, they are like the poisoned arrows 
of savage Bushmen which do more than cut. 

These leaders not only issue morning challenges to 
the army of God, but they demand an unconditional 
surrender. They maintain that present-day church 
organizations are archaic and that they must give way 
to socially grounded and socially directed religious 
bodies. Social salvation, and not individual, is their 
goal. Through law, they declare that man can and must 
‘‘lift himself by his own bootstraps.’ 

At first sight, these champions of law present an array 
of confidence and security. They are apparently an 
imperturbed group. They appear to be contentedly 
intrenched behind the walls of humanly constructed 
realities, modern science. They are admittedly worthy 
antagonists, yet not necessarily unconquerable ones, 


Life 

On the other side, supernaturalists, believers in the 
dominion of Infinite Life, are commendably large. Their 
possible educational lack is more than compensated by 
the character of their leadership. They do not boast of 
their great learning, many there are, however, whose 
intellectual equipment equals that of the most learned 
among the naturalists, but they represent the acme of 


wisdom and skill, a combination invincible in war. To 


them, the universe is God’s footstool, a natural and 
secondary cause, and an unfolder of bestowed law. 
The first glimpse, however, of the orthodox church 


[208] 


- ’ 
8 te a 


Law Versus Lire 


forces shows them up at a disadvantage. Their lines are 
temporarily broken because many have gone out who 
were not of them. Others, religious pimps, lower the 
morale of supernaturalists by their soft pedal leadership. 
Doubts are shared by some as to the final outcome. The 
leaders, although their prowess has been nobly estab- 
lished upon many battle fields, parry at first, and fail 
to meet the enemy upon his challenged ground. 

A closer view of the supernaturalists reveals a differ- 
ent picture indeed. Great activity 1s seen among their 
ranks. The deflection turns out for good. ‘‘ All things 
work together for good to them that love God.’’ There 
is a consequent drawing-in of their lines. Compactness 
is being realized. 

The suddenness and decisiveness of the re-alignment 
are somewhat disturbing to the naturalists, who vaguely 
feel that something is going wrong. ‘This is evidenced 
in their complaints against defense movements of ortho- 
dox Christians. No doubt their qualms would be greatly 
increased if they but realized that their lines were being 
observed through the lenses of Heaven, and that the 
flashlight of omniscience daily betrays their order of 
battle. 

Along with these rather disconcerting experiences for 
naturalists another entirely different set is being expe- 
rienced by supernaturalists. A new conviction grips 
them. A new decision seizes them. More and more they 
exclaim, ‘‘Come what may! Let come scorn, scoffs, rail- 
ings, derogations, opprobrium, or what not! Let ration- 
alizers and materializers dub us old-fashioned, out-of- 
date, ignoramuses, back numbers, moss-backs, or reli- 
oious quacks; we’ll stand true to our guns, and to God’s 


[209] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


program. We'll die, if need be, that Christ may be 
exalted as Lord and Savior; that truth may be regnant 
among men; and that Christianity, God’s revealed reli- 
gion, may possess the earth!’’ The new morale is marked 
by equanimity and seriousness. Orthodox leaders con- 
fidently busy themselves for battle. 


The Cause 


But why all this ado? How explain the mobilizing 
activities of each group? Many factors are obviously 
involved. All, however, may be reduced to one general 
statement, to-wit: Naturalists, in fostering what they 
deem to be a sane social program for social alleviation 
and redemption, seek to foist upon christendom a ration- 
alized natural religion. 

Evidence of this purpose is abundant. A single quota- 
tion will serve as an illustration. W. H. Wood, Dart- 
mouth College, in his book, ‘‘The Religion of Science,’’ 
very succinetly declares: 


‘“The sacred book is nature. It is independent, self- 
existent, self-moving, creative. There is one test of in- 
spiration and truth. That is being true to nature. 

‘‘Matter is eternally conserved. So is energy. Energy 
is fixed in amount. 

‘‘Nature is a great mechanism. Its parts are con- 
nected. 

‘‘Nature is uniform, rational, objectively real.’’ * * * 

‘*T believe in Evolution. 

‘*T believe in scientific method. 

‘*A radical religion is the highest type. 

‘* Religion is the product of evolution. It arose in and 
developed with the emotions. Religion probably emerged 
out of fear. 


[210] 


Law Versus Lirs 


‘‘God is a symbol of that which faith finds beyond 
where science ends. Science itself finds no God. It 
affirms no creative act. The chain of cause and effect 
extending back ad infinitum excludes the idea of the 
creation of the world and man.’’ 


This quotation demonstrates beyond peradventure 
that naturalism unquestionably challenges supernatural- 
ism and that its application to life plays down the 
sovereignty of God, the deity of Christ, the convicting 
power of the Holy Spirit, and the efficacy of the blood. 
Such a role is manifestly a spear-thrust into the vitals 
of absolute truth. 

The social gospel is a natural one. Its fundamental 
tenet is, Live according to law. In accepting naturalism 
as a basis for the explanation of all facts appearing in 
life’s processes, one can do nothing less than assume all 
religions to be natural and social. It is infinitely impor- 
tant for Christians to remember that naturalism sanc- 
tions only natural law and outlaws ever Infinite Life. 
Herein is disclosed the reason for the belligerent activi- 
ties of supernaturalists. The social gospel is the very 
antithesis of revealed religion. It is only too obvious 
that just in proportion as naturalists succeed in putting 
over their program of rationalizing and materializing 
Christianity, the death knell is being sounded for 
Christ’s leadership among men. Naturalists are mobi- 
lizing; orthodox Christians must fight! 


Characteristics 


But what is the nature of the principles involved? 
What is their significance? A brief review of the prin- 
ciples for which these fighting camps are being pitched 


[211] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


will now be made. Approaches to the interpretation of 
religious data are two-fold; namely, law and life, or 
nature and revelation. These approaches very clearly 
reveal the foundation for divergences of thought. 

In approaching the interpretation of religious phe- 
nomena through law, naturalists tend to materialize 
worship. Under such limitations religion becomes com- 
pletely human. Its tones are markedly this-worldly. 
Accordingly, supernaturalism is abhorred and conse- 
quently debarred. 

Present-day naturalists, however, divide into two 
wings: The one, Atheistic, or Fortuitous evolutionists, 
courageously accepts the logic of its premise and, in 
turn, frankly denies the existence of a personal God. 
This wing is to be admired, not for its judgment, but for 
its courage. A graphical illustration of Atheistic evolu- 
tion is submitted below. The graph shows that increase 
in knowledge is attended by decrease in the forms of 
worship, and that the ultimate religious state of the race 
is a state of Atheism. The other, Ethical, or Orthogene- 
tic evolutionists, unquestionably dodges the logie of its 
premise and, in turn, posits a natural God. While 
accepting Organic evolution in toto, this wing affirms 
the existence of God, but assumes Him to be simply 
nature. In other words, it personalizes the universe. 
This is obviously a compromise position. It is full of 
carefully concealed pitfalls. The gospel of the latter is 
the social gospel. It is the Devil’s trump card in his 
life-long religious gamble. In it, he most surely poses 
as an ‘‘angel of light.’’ 

As a rule, subsequent references to naturalists or to 


[212] 


i i i 


Law Versus LiFe 


naturalism will refer to Orthogenetic evolutionists, one 
wing of Organic evolutionists. 


Belligerent Issues 


In order to understand the present-day religious 
significance of naturalism, one must understand the 
bearing of Organic evolution upon worship. As pre- 
viously seen, such evolution champions natural law as 
the creating and controlling factor in the universe, and 
in doing so, logically discounts God, Christ, the Holy 
Spirit, sin, and salvation from above. In short, it dis- 
counts supernaturalism. 


Natural law discounts God. Accepting its absolute 
dominion, law reduces God to the universe. He is its 
erand totality, its processes and its products. Accord- 
ingly, God is matter; God is energy ; God is mind, only in 
man; but, above all, God is evolution. Now, if God is 
the sum total of all of the processes and the products of 
the universe, then He is simply personalized nature. 
Accordingly, Pantheism is the religion of natural law. 

While identifying God with law, naturalism seeks to 
describe Him from two points of view: First, it portrays 
Him as an inconstant value, never an absolute reality. 
He is always becoming. Second, it clothes and fills Him 
with relative attributes, each of which is created and 
assigned by men who cannot know and fellowship Him 
personally. Now, if God, existing, establishes no per- 
sonal contacts with the race, then the only alternative 
left for human beings is to imagine, through experience, 
the attributes of such an unknown and unknowable God, 
and, in turn, assign them to Him. 


[213] 


MENTAL EVOLUTION 
and ‘The Elimination of Religions 









Cr rr rr nn en rn rm rn ma rn ner ents cee ne cen nm on nng 


: MANAISM : 


‘ (Original religious state) 
All things—obyjects of worship 








ANIMISM 


Major things—objects of worship 










TOTEMISM 


Elusive animals—objects of worship 


ANCESTRAL WORSHIP 


Fathers—objects of worship 


POLYTHEISM 


Worship of many Gods 












HENOTHEISM 


National God 


MONOTHEISM 
One God 


ATHEISM 
‘ NoGod /¢ 


\ ‘ 
‘ 


The ultimate state of evolutionary 
religion is Atheism 


Law Versus Lire 


The thoughtful cannot refrain from raising the ques- 
tion, Why care about a God who is unknown and un- 
knowable? Why seek the favors of such an indifferent 
God? Why do homage to One who is prepared to elim- 
inate individuals by means of natural selection the 
moment imperfections appear, even though individuals 
themselves are not to blame? Obviously, the masses 
cannot look with favor upon such a God. Granting the 
existence of God, the premise of naturalism logically 
makes Him to exist, not as sovereign, but as subject. He 
is the race’s natural capital, to be used in purchasing 
its freedom from social chains. 

In identifying God with law, naturalism denies that 
He is both transcendent to and immanent in it. This 
position implies that there is no such place as a spirit 
world. Accepting its implication, there can be no need 
for other-worldly preachments. Such a delimitation of 
God minimizes Him and destroys His great world called 
Heaven. If God is not transcendent, then there can be 
no plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, no revelations, 
no special visions, no God incarnate, no regeneration 
from above, no blood redemption. In fact there can be 
no such thing as the fall, the sin, or the supernatural 
Savior. 

Naturalism reduces God to the role of a heartless 
brute. This conclusion is inescapable when once man 
admits the doctrine of ‘‘natural selection.’’ According 
to natural selection, God evolves the fittest through 
elimination and selection. He eliminates the unfit by 
means of war, famine, disease, sin, and death, and 
establishes the fit by preserving and selecting the higher 
forms of life. From this procedure, it is quite obvious 


[215] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


that God is not empathetic. The unfortunates, the born- 
shorts, the hapless, and the helpless, all go down beneath 
His ruthless axes of elimination. Such a God is not a 
God of love; He is simply a God of processes and 
products. 

But, orthodox Christians, believers in Infinite Life, 
while accepting natural development within limits, deny 
that naturalism is adequate to explain all of the facts 
in life’s processes. In overlooking the phenomena of 
supernaturalism it fails to qualify. Orthodox Christians 
insist that an intelligent God would communicate with 
intelligent creatures; that this role would manifest itself 
in constant fellowship between the finite and the Infi- 
nite; and that God in this fellowship would reveal His 
will to man in both words and deeds. 

Orthodox Christians deny that the universe is God. 
They insist that the universe is to God what the vessel 
is to the potter. It being God’s footstool, He cannot 
be limited to it. To them, He is both transcendent to 
and immanent in the universe. To make God the uni- 
verse is to materialize Him; to materialize Him is to 
heathenize Him; and to heathenize Him is to paganize 
Christianity. Such a delimitation manifestly destroys 
deity and outrages God. 

Orthodox Christians deny that God is a series of in- 
definite values, varying with human idealizations and 
appraisals. They maintain that God is absolute; that He 
represents in His matchless personality innate values, 
not assigned ones; that He embodies in Himself the 
ultimate realization of righteous processes; that in Him 
all eternity is present; and, morever, that in Him is the 
sum of all absolute values. Irrespective of human igno- 


[216] 


Law Versus Lirrt 


rance or arrogance, idealization or appraisals, He works 
intelligently, not blindly, justly, not criminally, lov- 
ingly, not brutally. 

Orthodox Christians stand for the transcendency of 
God as well as for His immanence. Such a doctrine pro- 
vides an adequate foundation for the plenary inspiration 
of the Scriptures, revelations, incarnation, resurrection, 
ascension, etc. God being transcendent to as well as 
immanent in the universe, He can enter nature from 
without, can reveal Himself to human beings, and can 
regenerate from above. Accordingly, God is sovereign 
and absolute. It is important to remember that if God 
is the universe; that is, if He is the sum total of its 
processes and products, then He is but a giant slave 
who has forged His own fetters. Hence, according to 
law, He is abject, not absolute, subject, not sovereign. 

Natural law discounts Christ. Accepting its absolute 
dominion, law discounts the deity of Jesus, According 
to naturalism, Christ is but a man. In attempting to 
account for Christ’s transcendent personality, natural- 
ists insist that He was but a religious genius, a variant 
of natural selection, a super-man; that by virtue of His 
extraordinary nervous co-ordinations He was able to 
epitomize the religious experiences of the races of men; 
and that by a process of detached thinking He was able 
to issue new religious concepts, to formulate a new 
ethical system, and to initiate a new religious movement 
for the complete socialization of the world. 

These thinkers assert that Christ marks the pinnacle 
of religious leadership. While bestowing this laurel 
upon Him, they regularly assume that He must be 
classed with Confucius, Gautama, and Mohammed; that 


[217] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


he is to religion what Darwin is to Biology, Newton to 
Physics, and Comte to Sociology; and that Christ is 
divine only in the sense that man is divine. A natu- 
ralist lately said to the author, ‘‘The glory of Jesus is He 
is like me.’’ Such present-day thinkers discount the doc- 
trine of a supernatural Christ, because Organic evolu- 
tion outlaws the God-man tenet. They admit, however, 
that Christ more nearly approximates the attributes of 
deity than any other creature known to man. 

Naturalists maintain that the Bible record concerning 
His birth is but a religious myth common to all religions ; 
that His miracles are but super-physical acts; and that 
His salvation is but an ethical one. Accordingly, His 
ideals and standards save, not His life and blood. There- 
fore, Christ should be honored as a religious genius, but 
not worshipped as Savior and King. 

But, supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, deny 
that Christ is simply a human being. To them, the terms 
‘‘oenius,’’ ‘‘mutant,’’ or ‘‘variant’’ fall infinitely short 
of explaining His incomparable life. They insist that 
His life belies the above imputations; that His labors 
transcend infinitely that of any historical or modern 
genius; that His way is one of wonders, marvels, and 
miracles; and that His fields of endeavors are ever 
strewn with glorious supra-human service. Supernatu- 
ralists point out that the achievements of geniuses are 
ever attended by mistakes, blunders, and failures, and 
they invite Organic evolutionists to set the intelligence, 
wisdom, power, and love of their historical and modern 
super-men up beside the intelligence, wisdom, power, and 
love of Christ. In comparison, the super-men most 
surely pale into nothingness. Christ’s whole life exem- 


[218] 


Law Versus Lirr 


plifies both His humanity and His deity. He is supra- 
human in intelligence, in wisdom, in power, and in love. 
He is God incarnate. The most that can be said for the 
genius is that he is a complex of will to do, and perhaps, 
a born-long in his neural structure. 

Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ - is the Son 
of God. They insist that He was sent from above; that 
He is God’s’ Word revealed in the flesh; that He is the 
exegesis of God’s nature and purpose; that He is co- 
existent and co-equal with God; and finally, that He is 
love’s crown, Heaven’s adoration, and earth’s salvation. 

Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way 
of progress. They assert that He is the highway to real 
success because He is the source of peace, prosperity, 
and good will. The way of Christ is the way of achieve- 
ment. 

Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way 
of knowledge and wisdom. Do you seek these? Go to 
Christ. Do you seek truth? Go to Christ. Truth is 
reality; Christ is absolutely real. The light of His 
understanding is the surest beacon for man as he ex- 
plores the wilderness of the unknown. Pilate stood in 
the presence of Truth and didn’t know it. Christ is 
truth. As scientists discover new truth, they look upon 
elements which point to Christ. ‘‘He is before all 
things and in Him all things consist.’’ Col. 1:17. The 
laws which hold the universe together are Christ’s power 
co-ordinating, controlling, and directing life’s processes. 
Continuity is unquestionably grounded in Infinite Life, 
not natural law. 

Orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is the way 
of life. ‘‘I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man 


[219] 


Can An Evouutionist Bz A CHRristiIan? 


cometh unto the Father but by me.’’ Human redemp- 
tion here appears as individual and personal. It fol- 
lows from this that society can be redeemed only 
through the redemption of the individual. Thus social 
redemption comes, not by group salvation, but by indi- 
vidual salvation; not by changing the thinking of the 
aggregate but by changing the nature of the individual 
in the aggregate. By the ‘washing of regeneration’”’ 
individuals are made clean. ‘‘The blood of Jesus Christ 
His Son eleanseth us from all sin.’’ 

Finally, orthodox Christians maintain that Christ is 
the epitome of God’s past, present, and future; that He 
is the summation of God’s power, knowledge, and love; 
that He is the complete embodiment of truth, the trans- 
cendent power center of the ages, the generalissimo of 
the blood redeemed, and the beacon light for the lost 
world; and finally that He is the friend of the oppressed, 
the Savior of the despairing, and the sovereign of truth 
and righteousness. Such a Christ is the hope of a sinful 
and chaotic world. 

Natural law discounts the Holy Spirit. Accepting its 
absolute dominion, law discounts the third person of 
the Trinity. The regnance of natural law certainly 
denies the rule of Infinite Life. Even to admit God to 
be a process destroys the concept of Trinity. Accord- 
ingly, the Holy Spirit does not actually exist as a per- 
son. He is but a fictitious character created by the 
fertile imagination of Hebrew geniuses. Being a quasi- 
personality, His attributes are purely assigned ones. It 
is wise to remember that should naturalists admit the 
existence of the Holy Spirit, that such an admission 
would logically surrender their whole position. Now, 


[220] 


if Law Versus Lirr 


the only possible service to be rendered by such a quasi- 
personality would be disclosed in the reactions people 
make to Him, their imaginary instructor, comforter, and 
euide. 

But, supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, con- 
test the position of naturalists who deny the existence of 
the Holy Spirit. They stoutly insist that Reason and 
Philosophy demand the existence of a third person in 
the Trinity; that He reveals Himself in the role of an 
instructor, interpreter, and guide; that He works pro- 
eressively and graciously among the sons of men; and 
that He stands between consciences and overt acts of 
gcuilt and back of consciences and outward acts of good. 
Much sacrifice and service are inexplicable apart from 
His existence and influence. He is a wooer and winner 
of souls unto righteousness. 

Natural law discounts sin. Accepting its absolute 
dominion, law discounts sin. Naturalism assumes that 
man’s nature is not tainted by the sin principle. It 
asserts that every impulse of original nature is right 
unless misdirected. Herein is revealed the bed-rock 
foundation of modernism, or the natural basis for cul- 
tural salvation. Jt follows from ths assumption that 
human control of human reactions 1s the only necessary 
solvent for social ills. Accordingly, sin is not bad; it is 
just a mistake, a mal-adjustment, a mere manifestation 
of ignorance; and war, famine, disease, and death, vice, 
murder, and crime are but breakdowns in the mutually 
adapted reactions within group life. Social evils are 
simply mal-adjustments growing out of human ignor- 
ance, not out of evil natures. 

But supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, main- 


[221 | 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


tain that sin is more than a mistake or a symbol of 
ignorance. They contest the claim of naturalists which 
asserts, ‘‘Every impulse of original nature is right un- 
less misdirected.’’ If evil is uninfluenced by original 
nature, then how account for the appearance and reg- — 
nance of evil, or the existence of an imperfect environ- 
ment? In the light of human experience, naturalists 
must admit that nature pulled a bone by failing to equip 
man for perfect reactions upon his entrance into the 
human world; or else, they must disavow their premise. 
They might deny the existence of imperfections in hu- 
man nature and environment, but facts would imme- 
diately become oppressively embarrassing. To attempt 
to secure perfection with an imperfect instrument means 
shipwreck. Such a means, however, is all that natur- 
alists can offer for human succor. 

Orthodox Christians further contest the position of 
naturalists who posit war, famine, and death, vice, mur- 
der, and crime as mere manifestations of ignorance. 
They insist that if God uses war, famine, and death, vice, 
murder, and crime to eliminate the unfit, then He be- 
comes the author of the gravest evils of society. Accord- 
ingly, there are no trials and tribulations, no heartaches 
and sorrows, no vices and crimes, no songs of hate and 
dances of death that must not be laid at the door of 
God. Justice, however, frees God from such a dastardly 
role. Sense liberates him from the ranks of the brutes. 
Human consciences extol Him as Lord. 

Orthodox Christians further maintain that sin is the 
result of the fall; that it is born of wrong nature under 
the influence of evil nurture; that it is a violation of 
God’s eternal law; that it is a terrible and tragic reality ; 


[222] 


Law Versus Lire 


and that it blasts human hopes and dwarfs human 
hearts. They assert that the hope of the race is not in 
its own nature, but in changing its nature. If their con- 
tentions are true, then the implications of naturalism 
making God the author and agent of war, famine, death, 
vice, murder, and crime are but travesties upon His Holy 
Majesty. God is not simply a God of processes and 
products; He is also a God of intelligence, justice, and 
love. 

Natural law discounts salvation from above. <Accept- 
ing its absolute dominion, law discounts blood redemp- 
tion. Accordingly, sin is but a synonym for ignorance. 
It follows from this that individual and social redemp- 
tion comes not by the Blood, nor by the will of God, but 
by the elimination of ignorance. Socialized education 
thus becomes the hope of the race. Obviously, then, 
salvation comes not by faith in Christ, but by faith in the 
ethical bequests of the race. Thus, Christ-worship would 
be idolatry. Accordingly, the race should trust its own 
ethical mentations, especially the bequests of its intel- 
lectual aristocrats. 

But, supernaturalists, believers in Infinite Life, deny 
that salvation is humanly determined. They insist that 
salvation en masse is impossible; that human redemption 
is individual and personal; and that salvation is exter- 
nally initiated and internally realized. They maintain 
that man is faulty by nature; and that he can, in and 
of himself, rise no higher in the scale of civilization than 
his own faulty nature can lift him. This assertion is 
based not simply upon the Bible teachings, that is 
enough, but upon the teachings of natural science as 
well. According to natural science, a body will continue 


[223] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


in motion in a given direction or remain stationary in- 
definitely unless operated upon by an external force 
adequate to change the direction or the potential of the 
body. Applying this principle to humanity, the race, 
in and of itself, is destined to walk the planes of im- 
perfection until time be no more. Man cannot lift him- 
self out of himself. He can rise only to the summit of 
his own strength. He cannot wing himself out and unto 
the planes of individual and social perfection because 
his power is relative and not absolute. 

Now, if, humanly speaking, individual and social re- 
demption are doomed to unrealization by virtue of man’s 
nature; if the chasm between human nature and per- 
fected nature cannot be spanned by man, then only two 
alternatives remain. Either, on the one hand, man is 
destined to walk an eternity in sin, in shame, and in 
regret; or else, on the other hand, he is destined to find 
deliverance in a power extraneous to himself. The 
choice is up to man. The former is unthinkable; the 
latter is elective. Deliverance, Thank God! This tri- 
umphant note is championed by supernaturalists. Glo- 
rious deliverance is vouchsafed to mankind through Jesus 
Christ. God Himself heralds this truth. He shouts, 
‘‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.’’ In this declar- 
ation we see Heaven’s provision for the rescue of a lost 
world. The way of deliverance is the way of Christ. 
‘‘T am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh 
unto the Father but by me.’’ Here is the King’s proe- 
lamation; salvation, not by works, not by knowledge, 
not by ethics, not by aesthetics, but by the God-man. 
The incarnated one is the way unto individual redemp- 
tion, unto social co-operation, and unto an unending 


[224] 


Law Versus Lire 


fellowship with life, light, and love—God. Salvation 
comes by grace, through faith, not by knowledge through 
works. Civilization must build around the mcarnated, 
crucified Christ, or die! 

Natural law discounts supernatural religion. Accept- 
ing its absolute dominion, law reduces Christianity to 
the level of man. ‘To illustrate, naturalists maintain that 
man, upon emerging from his pre-human state, stood at 
the gateway of humanity without experience; that he 
entered his new world without knowledge or religion; 
and that he slowly, but gradually, gathered, through 
ages of suffering, concepts about God and the future. 
At first, his religious feelings were vague and mysterious. 
His world, at first, beeame a wonder world. Later His 
Manaism was supplanted by Animism, Animism by To- 
temism, Totemism by Ancestral Worship, Ancestral 
Worship by Polytheism, Polytheism by Henotheism, and 
Henotheism by Monotheism. Ethical evolutionists stop 
here. But Atheistic evolutionists add, Monotheism by 
Atheism. According to both, all religions are simply by- 
products of human experience. All religious ideals are 
humanly evolved and approved. Religions thus appear 
as evaluating attitudes of the race toward the universe. 
They differ mainly in form, seldom in fact. Ignoring 
the logic of the above development, modernists confi- 
dently assert that Ethical Theism is destined yet to 
obtain among men. Ethical Theism is the rationally 
acceptable idealism of the Bible, plus. 

But, orthodox Christians contend that all religion is 
not natural and evolutionary. They deny the Theosophy 
of Dante and the naturalism of Drummond. They deny 
that religious idealism and life are limited to human 


[225] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHristTIaAn? 


experience. They admit that there are natural religions, 
facts force such an admission. But facts, while compel- 
ling such an admission, demand the recognition of re- 
vealed religion; namely, the Chrisitian religion. Much 
history is manifestly meaningless without such a recog- 
nition. 

Religions, as has been seen, fall into two classes, 
natural and revealed. Natural religions were developed 
through man’s attempt to find God who had become 
obscured by man’s sins. Revealed religion was dis- 
closed in God’s labors to succor man who was lost in his 
sins. Sin led to ignorance, and ignorance plunged the 
race into intellectual and spiritual night. This be- 
nighted state occasioned the revelations of God. Through 
these, He aimed to lead man out of night into light. 
Accordingly, the greatest torchlights of the ages are the 
Word, the Manger, and the Cross. 

Orthodox Christians deny that Christianity is simply 
an ‘‘evaluating attitude toward the universe.’’ They 
maintain that Christianity is a cause, not simply an 
effect; that it is a motivating energy, not merely an 
ethical code; and that it is a life capable of evaluating 
attitudes, not merely an end-result of social selections. 
Christianity is divine potency. It is God’s benevolent 
and creative power seeking to regain the paradise lost 
to him by man’s rebellion and sin. Better, Christianity 
is Christ in me, working through me for me for others. 

In accepting the Bible as God’s revealed word, and 
in accepting it as their chart and compass, orthodox 
Christians can do nothing less than reject naturalism, 
Organic evolution, in toto if they expect to maintain 
orthodox Christianity before a tribunal of common sense 


[226] 


Law Versus Lire 


and truth. To accept naturalism as the basis of the 
Christian religion, there is no escape from going over 
into the category of paganism. Modernism is paganism 
bedecked in a stolen robe; namely, a vestment of Chris- 
tian ethical values. 

The bed rock foundation for the interpretation of the 
Christian religion is that it was, 1s, and ever shall be 
revealed and non-evolutionary. 

Having now reviewed briefly the issues and their 
meanings, certain conclusions obtrude themselves. 

First, the principles controlling the two groups being 
admittedly diametrical, the gulf separating the two 
being incomparably wide, and the earthly aspirations 
of the two being largely identical, a giant conflict is in- 
evitable, and the battle is destined to be a decisive one. 

Second, if the principles of naturalism predominate, 
orthodox Christianity must pass. If naturalism puts a 
question mark after the authenticity of the Scriptures, 
the fall of man, the depravity of souls, the incarnation 
of Jesus Christ, the vicarious suffering of the Son of 
God, and blood redemption; and if it substitutes the 
manuals of men for the doctrines of God, then under 
such influence Christianity 1s doomed. 

If the regnance of Organic evolution would ulti- 
mately destroy orthodox Christianity, then it must ac- 
tually be unchristian in nature and in function. Can 
an Evolutionist Be a Christian? The answer is con- 
ditional. If an evolutionist is unsaved, the answer must 
be negative. The reasons for this answer are obvious: 
Since Organic evolution, as has been previously seen, 
logically and actually encourages selfishness, outlaws the 
existence of a supernatural Being, plays Infinity down to 


[227] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN ? 


the level of a material process, reduces the Son of Right- 
eousness to the plane of carnality, flays blood redemption 
as irrational and brutal, outlaws the plenary inspiration 
of the Scriptures, undermines morality, promotes social 
iconoclasm, encourages opportunism, and disrupts ¢civi- 
lization, then it would, in function, actually fruit in 
values diametrically opposite those of orthodox Chris- 
tianity. Accordingly, through evolutionary instruction 
and belief, no man in all the world in all the ages could 
become a Christian. In the light of this, enquirers are 
forced to conclude that Organic evolution is essentially 
anti-Christian in nature and function. Of course, a 
Christian may become an evolutionist but an evolution- 
ist can never, through his natural philosophy, become a 
Christian. A Christian is himself plus Christ. An 
evolutionist is himself minus Christ. Organic evolution 
chills one’s heart. Christ warms and enlists it. 

If naturalists assail the verities of revelation, what 
should orthodox Christians do? Three courses are 
open: In the first place, they could ignore the program 
of the naturalists. Such a course would in the end fetter 
Christianity with the manacles of rationalism. In the 
second place, they could compromise with naturalists. 
Such a course would inevitably undermine the Savior- 
hood and Lordship of Jesus. In the third place, they 
could fight. To the humble thinking of the author, the 
way of the battle 1s the way of victory for orthodox Chris- 
tianily. War alone can save Christianity for the sons of 
men. ‘The sword of absolute truth must be thrust into 
the vitals of modern rationalism. 

Third, if the principles of naturalism obtain, civiliza- 
tion will be paganized. Supernaturalists must fight not 


[228] 


Law Versus LiFe 


for Christ only, but for the life of civilization itself. Cul- 
ture is becoming paganized. The drum beat of duty calls 
all God-honoring and Christ-loving souls into the battle 
line. 

While the drum beat of duty insistently summons 
orthodox Christians into the fight, they must recognize 
that the battle is one unto death; that the enemy is 
strongly entrenched; and that their warfare is seldom 
in the open. Odd as it may appear, it is hard to get 
naturalists to come out where they can be looked over 
religiously. They hesitate about offering their own 
opinions, but they are quite free to offer opinions of 
others, especially the opinions of the dead. 

The battle is complicated because naturalists appar- 
ently oppose developing definite beliefs. In the lght 
of the suggestions of naturalists, the more you know the 
less you know. Accordingly, if education were carried 
far enough, the world would one day witness a race of 
‘‘know-nothings.’’ Although naturalists shy at dogma- 
tism, there is actually not a more dogmatic group under 
the skies than they. While orthodox Christians say, 
‘‘This one thing I know,’’ naturalists say, ‘‘This one 
thing I don’t know.’’ They are just as dogmatic on their 
‘‘don’t knows’’ as orthodox Christians are on their ‘‘do 
knows.’’ The doctrine of ‘‘open-mindedness’’ 1s a farce 
if 1t does not lead to a system of orgamzed convictions. 
It appears that naturalists fortify themselves behind a 
wall of intellectualism, thoroughly camouflaged for their 
own protection. When one ventures out and is attacked, 
he immediately finds refuge behind the ignorance of his 
assailant. 

Now, if naturalism, Organic evolution, completely 


[229] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CuHrRIstTIAN? 


outlaws supernaturalism and, as a consequence, dis- 
counts God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin, and salvation 
from above, and if the disciples of naturalism aggres- 
sively push aside the principles and practices of ortho- 
dox Christians, then supernaturalists have but one alter- 
native left. They must fight. 

As a preparation for the impending conflict there are a 
few principles that every orthodox Christian should care- 
fully consider. Soldiers of the Cross should grasp and 
crip the following truths: 


. Fraternizing tends to sacrifice fundamentals. 
All progress is not by compromise. 
. Intelligence is not a synonym for salvation. 
The devil knows more ethics than most people. 
. Human perfectibility in this life is a delusion. 
Only the imperfect can see perfection in man. 
. The natural man is the measure of paganism. 
The God-man is the measure of christendom. 
. Man is the menace of today. 
Christ is the hope of tomorrow. 
. Advance thinking is good. 
Thinking in advance of God is bad. 
. Materialism is a synonym for selfishness. 
It supplies man’s carnal nature with its code of 
ethics. 
8. Science founded upon truth is Christ-like. 
Science founded upon Pithecanthropus-Erectus is 
Lucifer-lke. } 
9. God is sovereign. 
His subjects are volunteers, not conscripts. 
10. Omniscience and omnipotence are helpless before 
rebellious soldiery. 
God’s sovereignty ends where man’s begins. 
11. God’s Word is the truth. 
His Word is the sword. 


[230] 


Ot Ol eS — 0 a a 


Law Versus LiFe 


12. God ean only get into big programs. 
He gets into big programs in little ways through 
human beings. 


Concerning this preparation, another word must be 
said. In the prosecution of this war, lectures, sermons, 
and monographs will play an important role. Further- 
more, books must be requisitioned. Psychologies, biolo- 
gies, sociologies, and philosophies must be penned by 
men who dare to break with established methods, who 
dare to taboo naturalism as all-explanatory of life’s pro- 
cesses, who dare to honor Christ as the God-man and to 
eross steel with those who would reduce the Son of God 
to the level of a human mutation or a variant in natural 
selection. Books, books, more books must be written! 

Remembering that the social gospel is but naturalism 
regaled in a vesture of Christian ethical concepts; re- 
membering that a good Buddhist could qualify for mem- 
bership in modernistic Christian churches; remember- 
ing that Organic evolutionists can do nothing less than 
reject orthodox Christianity 1n toto; remembering that 
Bible reference to special visions, visitations, revelations, 
inspiration from above, etc., must be consigned to the 
category of Hebrew myths, fables, or folklore; and re- 
membering that the bed rock foundation of modernism 
was, is, and ever shall be natural and evolutionary, then, 
let every soul believing in Infinite Life enlist under the 
banners of Prince Immanuel. 

In conclusion, which should obtain, Law or Life? 
Millions say ‘‘law’’ and millions say ‘‘life.’’ The ad- 
vantage is manifestly with ‘“‘life.’’ This holds true both 
before and in death. A careful observation of natural- 


[231] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


ists and supernaturalists in the moment when they face 
post-grave realities, brings interesting and meaningful 
contrasts. 


Law or Life at Death 


A contrast between the death of the naturalist and the 
death of the supernaturalist has significant bearing upon 
the issues involved in this study. In death, the natural- 
ist has nothing to offer him comfort save the law which 
he has idealized in life. In death, the supernaturalist 
has the promises of an all-wise, loving God to give him 
assurance as he sojourns into the Valley of Death. 

According to universal testimonies, every individual 
feels that mundane existence does not end all; that some- 
where beyond the vale a spiritual habitat awaits him; 
and that somehow his disembodied spirit treks into 
realms hitherto unexplored. Every individual feels 
that he has an eternity of joy or despair unspent, or an 
eternity of life unrealized. 


Barrenness of Law 


But law’s provisions for death are unrequiting. It 
offers no hope for the future, constructs no highways 
to love’s utopia, opens no gates into the city celestial. 
To those passing into the shadows of death, law offers 
no help, no hope, no haven. For the crosses which the 
dying has borne in this world, it offers no crowns in the 
world to come. 

Imagine the dismay of the naturalist, trusting law 
and vaguely conscious of an eternity unrealized, coming 
face to face with death. What an unwelcome visitor 
death must be to him who has immortal and unrequited 


[232] 


Law Versus Lire 


longings unsatisfied. As the clammy fingers of death 
proceed to effect the release of his spirit for its trek into 
eternity, how dismal and how unsatisfying the outlook 
must be. To him the gateway of eternity discloses no 
smiling face, no beckoning hands, no cheering voice, and 
reveals no promises, no trophies, no crowns. Doubtless 
that hour, unillumined by faith and hope, witnesses the 
dying enveloped in a blackness darker than the nightly 
shrouds of Death’s Valley. Out of the cavernous sha- 
dows of death his despair, consuming and mastering, is 
born. He seeks in vain to penetrate the veil. His own 
philosophy, fabricated during life, now circumscribes 
and fetters him. Helpless, hopeless, havenless, he lies 
enmeshed in his own mentations. 


Fullness of Life 


Life’s provisions for death are requiting. It offers 
hope for the morrow; bridges gulfs between the visible 
and the invisible; bears spirits unto planes supernal ; 
and opens gates into the city celestial. To those passing’ 
into the shadows of death, Infinite Life offers help, 
hope, haven, and provides crowns for earthly crosses. 

Imagine the calm waiting of the supernaturalist, trust- 
ing an Infinite God, as he faces the summons of death. 
To him, it is not a despairing call. Its cold fingers but 
release gossamer wings for his ascent unto love’s utopia. 
To him, the gateway of eternity reveals smiling faces, 
beckoning hands, cheering voices, and discloses promises, 
trophies, crowns. Death with its blackness and cavern- 
ous shadows brings him no despair, because he trusts 
God to effect his release and to bear him safely unto the 
land of the cloudless day. In fact, death is but an ugly 


[233] 


Can An Evouutionist Br A CHRISTIAN? 


servitor which breaks his shackles of clay and releases 
his spirit for its trek unto the planes of fadeless light. 
How embracing must be the promises of supernaturalism 
to the earthly way-faring man who has witnessed earth’s 
pollutions and experienced earth’s grind. When every 
earthly outlook reveals tears, heartaches, and grief, how 
gladsome must be faith’s vision, when it rolls back the 
clouds as a scroll and throws into relief the land in 
which all tears have been dried, all heartaches have been 
allayed, and all grief has been assuaged. What solaces, 
what joy, what love, the Prince of Peace provides! By 
faith the redeemed penetrates the veil. Hopeful, help- 
ful, havenful, he stands released by the Blood of the 
Lamb. 

Let the eternal hills, let the slaking waters, let the 
merry breezes, let the laughing brooks, clap their hands, 
lift up their voices, and shout for joy! The God of 
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob is, and He ruleth for- 
ever and ever. 


‘‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the 
world and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded 
it upon the seas and established it upon the floods. Lift 
up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye ever- 
lasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. Who 
is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the 
Lord mighty in battle.’’ The Lord leads in the battle. 
Life wins over Law. Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice! 


THE END 


[234] 


‘' et 
neva ; 


4, ae Ng 


AR AGL a 
eT 


be 
eras 


Y Ne 


fi 





GAYLORD 


DATE DUE 


#3523PI 


Printed in USA 


























WW \ . . RR 
RAY ‘ RAS SA We 
AN LON YY RY \ SN \ 
RMA \ 
. NN . 
: WY WN WN A \ 
AY WS . NY NS AX \ \ WY NY : 
\\\ WY ANN MQ LY WQS ANN AN AW a 
LQ own AX WN ANN \ NAN SN 
: . A SN . 
MMMM N . . SN MOY : 5 SS . PARK 
QQ MMI IO WS 





Princeton Theological Seminary- 


wi Hin 


MMW WW \\\ RAY 
MAY \\ \ 
AX KG 1 1012 01017 7097 Ka 
RRMA LAY SN SRS 
. QQ NY Ws 


OY RQ Ny 





RMA : . Y ANS WAIN . . ‘ . . IN 


MY 
AN \N \S YS A RAY \ 


WON MY 











AN AS SYN WAM . MOA \ . . 
SANS X . : 
WS . AN WY ‘ \ S MMAAY 
WOK RRA \S . . . . . . RAR 
RIVA WY ‘ ‘ . ‘ 
QQ S . SOY . SAN SAY 
RRA AY WY RY SN ANY NY : : RN AY 
RAN WS SY WS WY WY SERN AN SAN SEN 
OMY Rk SAAN RMA SY RAY MANY. YS 
AKG \ WY AN WY WN RN . Y AY MARS NS ENN i 
Ny AAS A X \ \ 
CAA SRR VMAS AN SY \ . SS RAN 
Wk WEAN ‘ ‘ WA . . aS \, - \\ WAS ‘ a \ 














